rachel_stephens1 Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 Hi all, I allowed a digital artist to use some of my imagery for his personal website a few years ago. I just got an invite to a show he is having where he will be selling his work. I never agreed to the sale of the images and I am wondering how to go about handling this. He is charging $350+ for each art piece and he has used about 20 of my images in his work. I am sure that a good portion of the pieces he is exhibiting and selling are of my work. I own the copyright, I have the model releases from the models and if he is going to make money on my work, I think I am entitled to compensation. Advice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oceanphysics Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 You're definitely entitled to compensation. But have you talked to the guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art_haykin Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 Get a lawyer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachel_stephens1 Posted April 27, 2007 Author Share Posted April 27, 2007 I emailed him and he said: "Don't worry. I already had them print up Photography by Rachel Stephens." Uh, just photo credit? I don't think so! I can't afford a lawyer. I already had to fork out $500 I don't have for another copyright infringement case from last year. I don't think he is deliberately trying to capitalize on my work or the work of other photographers, I just think he really doesn't understand the situation and his ego can't see past the fact that it isn't JUST his work. I am attaching a sample of one of his pieces featuring my work. Should I quote a flat fee for each image he uses? Like a buyout license? I don't know what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloosqr Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 You should absolutely and make it high. He will end up not ever being able to sell that work or show it if he doesn't agree so you really have the advantage and he really has an incentive to agree w/ whatever price you ask. This really is clear cut as he is profiting by stealing your work. It would really be best to have a lawyer though.. (just get a letter ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_mcclain Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 I'm not sure which portion of your attached picture is your work. The model? Did he just past the overlay? Second, if you can't afford a lawyer, check into legal aid socities that center on artists, or represent yourself in small claims court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloosqr Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 You are at chapel hill? Do you guys have an law school? Talk to someone over there .. (via a media studies/communications prof who is interested in copyright law, if you can) .. if the image attachment is an example of his art i can't imagine something being more clear cut.. its 90% your photo. Let me put it this way he is making at least $7000 by stealing your work.. that is simply unfair and even more so unethical :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloosqr Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 oops i clicked on ocean physics on accident (ignore the UNC bit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshschutz Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 on a scale of cool to not cool... that is definetly not cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce levy Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 First, the model release was to YOU, not him. He has no right to show pictures that require a release that wasn't expressly made to him (plus you really didn't have the right to release someone else's likeness to him without her permission). Second, he had permission to use them for a site, not for commercial sale. I would look for a lawyer who'll take it on contingency, that way he gets a percentage of whatever he recovers and you have no out of pocket expenses. If it turns out the guy's broke, the lawyer probably won't take the case but give it a try. Third, next time make sure all your bases are covered beforehand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce levy Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 Also, you can pay a lawyer a relatively small fee to "write a letter" on his stationary to sacre the bejeezuz out of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_mcclain Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 I forgot to add, when and if you speak to a legal aid clinic or law firm, you might want to ask if you can represent yourself in state small claims court because copyright infringment is probably within the sole jurisdiction of federal courts. Even if so, a lawyer might be able to give you advice on a similar cause of action that the state's small claims courts have jurisdiction over. When considering the cost of hiring an attorney, consider finding one who'll work on contingency, and alternatively, with an attorney representing you you might get a higher level of damages to pay for your costs, especially if you registered your copyright with the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_thompson2 Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 "because copyright infringment is probably within the sole jurisdiction of federal courts." The opposite is true, without registration, the federal courts do not have jurisdiction. To have access to federal courts, Rachel would have to register her copyrights. Because the registration is after the fact she will not be entitled to statutory damages but actual damages. Whether or not he artist infringed or not or whether he needs a model release would depend on how transformative work is. Whether the work is a derivative, or a whole new work that stands on its own. Also, Rachel cannot sue on behalf of the model. The model would need to file a claim. I'm also pretty sure she cannot use the model release as some sort of bargaining tool. It would also depend on what kind of license Rachel gave when she let the digital artist to use the imagery in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 The attached uploaded file is decent enough to make a decent wall sized poster. Now the image in question has been broadcast to the world. Next it might be launched on Kazaa, or as group of artsy images floating around as a torrent. The image is 1600x1200 pixels. Looking at the file with CS3's Bridge; one sees no author, no contact info, no copyright info, no way to figure who owns this image.. Images like this do appear at print shops, we have no clues as to owns the image. Thus they get printed. If there was a copyright info or contact info ; "grey area" work can be check if required. Alot of works are just lost due to giving them away. A chap 1/2 way around the globe can be using this image in a 2008 calendar, etc and you may never know. You might want to reconsider if its a good business practice to publicly launch decently sized files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 Now the other guy's work has been published without permission. Swift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachel_stephens1 Posted April 28, 2007 Author Share Posted April 28, 2007 There isn't an issue with web use. It's been on the web, in this size, it's the only size I had which he sent me last year. Didn't cross my mind to check the file size. The issue here is the sale of the images without permission. I am asking for advice from people who want to help me. I didn't post on here to be flamed. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 "The issue here is the sale of the images without permission." Infringement is not merely confined to instances where copyrighted material is sold. Now you should consider if your own publication is permissable or is its own infringement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Rachel my point is from running a print shop too. The general public considers the web to be a free source of images. Thus your image and others gets lifted; rehashed, used in unknown avenues. If one lets groups of dogs, cats, bees free across the country, the chances of getting them all back is not great. With a specific known abuser of your images; go after them. It might be the tip of the iceberg. Once an image is published on the web its hard to say who now has a copy, what they are doing with it. Tracking down each user of a free image off the web is impossible. You might find ten years from now that your image was used to sell widgets in the country of Linksys but the company is now bankrupt, so there is nothing to go after. The point about the web and higher res images is it does increase copyright infringment. Its like leaving an unlocked new car with the keys in it in a bad area of town, with every last VIN number removed. Follow Art's advice and get a lawyer. You want one versed in this type of issue. The other chap who is using you images can also be versed in getting free images. Your lawyer needs to see what you signed, assigned, the fine boilerplate on any documents relating to these images. Sometimes sneaky contracts have boilplate one doesnt understand at first glance. Copyrights and patents get ignored around the globe, you have to defend you position. Get a lawyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachel_stephens1 Posted April 28, 2007 Author Share Posted April 28, 2007 Thanks everyone for your advice and for those of you getting off topic, thanks for your insight. I will keep it in mind in the future. Kelly, thank you. Yes I know this is a problem and has been one for me a few times with people stealing my images and using them as their in their online portfolios and ads but usually an email works. Had a client take usage rights she didn't have and revoke mine through the model from whom I did not have a release. I have been learning things the hard way for sure. In this instance, the guy has been publishing the artwork in the size I posted (the original image he sent to me) on his website as desktops. I never had a problem with his personal usage of the art or sharing them with his fans. The models all know that he used their images for artwork and I sent them all copies of their pieces. I myself am featured in some of these pieces as he used some of self portrait work. No problem. I do have an issue with his selling the images for personal gain when that was clearly not the agreement and if money is going to be made from our collaboration, the profits should be split in my opinion. I use this site as a checks and balances as I am completely winging it in this business that I love so much. Unfortunately, it's complicated because to get anywhere, you need a portfolio and to build a portfolio, you need to work a lot for free, and once you get out there, people get interested. I thought this collaboration was really cool and it was fun to see what he was doing with the imagery but to take it to this level without my consent is not right. I am going to call Ms Carolyn Wright. She has chased down someone for me before and I am confident she can do it again! Thanks again you guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 "Had a client take usage rights she didn't have and revoke mine through the model from whom I did not have a release." How can a third party revoke usage rights and even more strange is a third party revoking rights that you say don't exist. It sounds like you are mixing up the concepts of copyright (ownership issues) and model releases (permission to publish one's likeness). You say you are seeking help and it is needed. To 'completely wing it' as you say is extremely risky. If you intend to be a professional, it is crucial to understand the business you are in which includes what rights and obligations you will encounter with others. Also, you indicate that this site is used as checks and balances. There is much more incorrect information on this site as to legal issues than correct. This is a very poor source for this type of information. At least its great for photorapghy advice and useful for considering various business advice that is given. It would be useful to get a book addressing the legal matters for overall knowledge. Use a lawyer go over your documentation and other set up issues. And good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_moore Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Well I agree you need a lawyer since you are way deep into this. But you might also approach the gallery owner who has some culpability in this. Scare tactics might get it put off a bit while you organize a defense. Figure out what you want. Some of the proceeds of the sales, no sales to anyone? Once you know what you want you will be in a better position to bargin. This is an intense learning experience on managing your images. Brooke Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeb Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Fine art images do not require model releases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 If used in advertising they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now