Copyright Infringement by Sean Peele of seanpeelephotography.com

[john_h.1]

<p>There's a Sean Peele on Facebook holding a camera in a profile image. This does not mean its the same person discussed here. Independent verification would be needed for that. Certain communications could cause legal problems BTW. I post the info in case someone might know IF its the same person. I do not recommend that contact be made at any point and, in fact, discourage that. </p>

[ianivey]

<blockquote>

<p>

<blockquote>

<p>I could care less if this idjut used my images, it doesn't hurt me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then you mean you <em>couldn't</em> care less.</p>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve Smith, you adorable grammar gestapo, you. I bet you grind your teeth when people use "decimated" as a synonym for "devastated." And you probably call people out when they say they're "nauseous," when they really mean "nauseated." (Perhaps you even think, "But technically you were right: you <em>are </em>nauseous.")</p>

<p>If you're ever in the DC area, shoot me a note and I'll treat you to tea. We could run around spray-painting "ough" on the end of McDonald's "Drive-Thru" signs.</p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>Roberta--if you are still reading this, thank you again. I think perhaps hearing from an actual prospective client (a real bride instead of other photographers) may have turned the tide. We should all thank you, so let me be the one, on the behalf of all photo.net photographers.</p>

<p>John O.--that is a lot of detective work. Thank you for doing it. One of my main concerns was letting every photographer whose images appeared on Mr. Peele's site know about it. Please tell Rachel Barker to contact me if she needs any other information.</p>

<p>Again, thanks to Bob Atkins, John H., Rob D. and anyone else providing good information--too many to name (I feel like I'm at an awards show).</p>

<p>Dave Gardner and all affected photographers--you are welcome. We need to stick together. Particularly since I don't think we've seen the last of Sean Peele. And there are others, no doubt.</p>

[matroskin]

<p>wow, you people are powerful! 30 hours to bring that thief down. hopefully it will be a lesson for many who'd like to steel photos from photo.net members and others. </p>

<p>i've been reading up on the web communities and how they self-govern and police themselves. let me tell you, it's one thing to read about Wikipedia and people who keep a watchful eye on the content, but to see it happen in front of my eyes is quite something. y'all rule.</p>

<p>maybe this could be highlighted on somebody's blog or somewhere else so that a wider audience would know how quickly stealing can turn on you.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>As of 1300 on Thursday, his site appears to be down. This is despicable.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Still up at http://www.partypop.com/Vendors/4340009.htm along with stock images</p>

[ejder]

<p>Huh. I almost feel insulted that he didn't take any of my photos.</p>

[irusan]

<p>One note of caution - while I am more than happy to see this guy made an example of, I worry that "mob mentality" is starting to take over.</p>

<p>Regarding the use of stock images, since the iStock logo has been removed one of three things has happened:</p>

<ol>

<li>Peele removed the logo in Photoshop (or some other application)</li>

<li>Peele purchased the license to use the images</li>

<li>Peele lifted the stock images from other websites that legally purchased the usage rights.</li>

</ol>

<p>Now, I sincerely doubt that the kind of person who simply takes other people's images will spend the time to painstakingly remove the logo pixel-by-pixel so I personally discount #1.</p>

<p>That leaves one of two possibilities, one of which is okay - that he actually purchased them. Yeah yeah, I know, I doubt it too but until we know for certain, we can't be sure. So we need to be careful about accusing him of stealing the stock images.</p>

<p>I am glad to see this community taking such a proactive approach as I am a very strong supporter of our intellectual property rights. But before we start heeding the calls to carry burning stakes and pitchforks, we need to remember:</p>

<ul>

<li>This is simply a copyright infringement case and only those whose work has been stolen can pursue action. </li>

<li>If the images aren't registered with the US Copyright office, you'll likely never find an IP attorney willing to take the case, even if you wanted to spend the thousands of dollars to file suit in federal court. Yes, even if the images are not registered, you are still entitled to sue for any profit that he makes from the use of your images but that is likely far less than what the legal fees will be. A DMCA take-down notice is pretty much your only recourse.</li>

<li>Finally, this is not (sadly) a unique case; this happens a lot. But let's stay diligent!</li>

</ul>

[sreegraphy]

<p>Personally I feel it's better to beg for ideas than to steal others work.. There cannot be a shortcut to success..<br>

Nadine,<br>

I assume No sooner I am going to get affected of Image infringement. Becoz I am still learning the curve of the art. But feel sorry for other Pros who'd have climbed the hardest cliffs to see success. Your proactive initiative is well appreciated..</p>

 

[bobatkins]

<p>With regard to registration of copyright, the US Copyright Office says this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If registration is made within three months after publication<br /> of the work <em><strong>or</strong> </em> prior to an infringement of the work,<br /> statutory damages and attorney’s fees will be available to<br /> the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an<br /> award of actual damages and profits is available to the<br /> copyright owner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not a lawyer but to me this indicated that you can register your copyright up to 3 months after publication - and <em>after</em> infringement has occurred - and still sue for statutory damages. If you haven't registered it and it's been published for longer then 3 months, then you're out of luck.</p>

<p>I'm sure stock agencies can take care of themselves and I suspect that most stock images from professionals are probably registered. Legal use of stock images is fine. I'm not sure about the ethics of using stock images when you're advertising yourself as a photographer but that's a different subject.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>Nadine said:</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p>Sorry--here is a link.<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.seanpeelephotography.com/" target="_blank">http://www.seanpeelephotography.com/</a></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The site does not seem to be registered anymore ...</p>

 

[greg_fehn]

<p>I think the concerned parties would like to notify the site hosts who are still advertising his "services", as well as look for more infringements. Here are a few sites he's still advertising on as of today, March 18th, 2010.....<br>

http://www.shared-memories.com/photographers.htm<br>

http://www.yelp.com/biz/sean-peele-photography-san-diego<br>

http://www.photographik.org/surfplay<br>

http://www.partypop.com/Vendors/4340009.htm<br>

http://www.101bachelorettepartytips.com/Directory/Event_Wedding_Photographers/v4340338.htm<br>

http://www.101photographers.com/directory/Event_Wedding_Photographers/v4136816.htm (on the right side of the page)<br>

http://www.orangecounty.net/html/photographers.html<br>

http://www.onlinebridalshows.com/exhibitors/4340009.htm</p>

 

[User_5888660]

<p><a name="infringed"></a><br />A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. <strong>In cases of willful infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation."</strong></p>

<p>From the US Government Copyright Website: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Arthur--the site has been taken down. Whether Mr. Peele did so himself or the the site host did so, I don't know. Your images were on his site, I am sure of it, or I wouldn't have contacted you. But since the site is gone, I wouldn't worry about it, except that you should know about it, in case he decides to get a new site with images that aren't his. Contact me if you wish.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Greg--thanks for digging that up. Unfortunately, to go after removal of those images, the actual and specific concerned parties must initiate the action. In those ads, some of the images are from stock photo places (see Bob Atkins post above), and the only one I can identify specifically is in the video listed on the last link--onlinebridalshows. The last image, of the bride in silhouette against a window with curtains is taken by Sergey Usik, a photo-netter. I don't know if he is aware of this particular use.</p>

<p>Of the other images, I'm pretty sure the close up black and white of the bride is someone's image. I'll have to dig around to find it again. The image of the Asian couple was taken at Stanford University, here in Palo Alto, California, but it *might* be a stock image. The full length image of the bride, from the back, with the red window panels--I could swear I've seen it somewhere, but can't find it specifically.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>The other thing that simply maddens the stuffings out of me with this whole deal is that Sean Peele may not even be skilled enough to take wedding photos of this quality. I have not seen any of his work so I cannot make a determination, so I am only talking in the hypothetical. Therefore, in addition to stealing others' work, which is bad enough, he may be falsely representing his abilities to potential clients. <em>That's an ever greater crime</em>. Clients contract with a wedding photographer based upon the images they see on their site or in their portfolio. They have every expectation that their wedding photos will be of the same caliber. If the photographer is not up to producing images of that caliber, then the client will be the one who loses out on that one shoot that <em>cannot be re-shot</em>. They may think they are getting a thoroughbred and wind up with a nag.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<p>Thanks, Nadine, I wasn't trying to question your findings ... just curious what was on his website.</p>

 

[JTG1]

<p>Boy, this is spreading like wildfire on the net!<br>

I stumbled across this link that not only shows a photo (top photo) that I believe was in a *Wedding Critique of the Week * within the last 4 months but he also put his name on the photo. It also offers a telephone, maybe one could just simply call?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.squidoo.com/sandiego-wedding-photography?utm_campaign=search-discovery&utm_medium=greet4&utm_source">http://www.squidoo.com/sandiego-wedding-photography?utm_campaign=search-discovery&utm_medium=greet4&utm_source</a>=</p>

<p>~Jack</p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>Jack--I don't recognize that bride/silhouette as a Wedding Photo of the Week, but Michael Brown's Photo of the Week was on his site. The other image is by another victim, and he knows about the situation.</p>

[JTG1]

<p>Nadine --</p>

<p>I maybe mistaken but I know that image or one from the series was posted withing the last 4 months. My memory tells me it was the same shot but with the doors closed...but Ive slept since then, the brain has reset a few times!! :)</p>

<p>Another interesting cached site for him:<br>

<a href="http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:uGrnqAg2tgYJ:www.google.com/profiles/seanpeelephotography%3Fhl%3Den+858-437-7955&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us">http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:uGrnqAg2tgYJ:www.google.com/profiles/seanpeelephotography%3Fhl%3Den+858-437-7955&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us</a></p>

<p>~Jack</p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>Jack--could be. Find it for me! It looks familiar to me too, but I just went through the Wedding Photo of the Week submissions, and didn't see it.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Go to YELP, leave him a review, then phone him (he has voice mail!) and leave him a message. You know you want to. His phone # on YELP:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.yelp.com/biz/sean-peele-photography-san-diego">http://www.yelp.com/biz/sean-peele-photography-san-diego</a></p>

<p>858-437-xxxx</p>

<p>check it.</p>

[george_peng1]

<p>I wonder if we can find one of his customers and find out if his work is actually any good.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Roberta Ganz, above, commented on that. Looking at some of the comments on various websites, I have some questions about the remarks left near his advertisements. </p>

<p>I'm working on a story about this for the blog. If you guys call him up and give him hell, he's going to be less likely to talk to me. If you've got a real grievance, you know calling him is not the right thing to do. </p>

<p>Looking at some of the other info, I think I'm going to find out some other stuff about what happened. Like, this guy may have screwed up, but he's not totally evil. We'll see. </p>

<p>Give me another day before you break out the flamethrowers. You know everybody's going to know about this as it is. Just put off the barbecue until Saturday. </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Actually, I suggest we don't buy any flamethrowers at all. As it is, Mr. Peele has a world of trouble right now. All I care about is that my images are off his site, and other photographers' images are off his site. Also that he not do this again. The first thing has happened, and while I wasn't wishing his site to be gone, the fact that it is gone means other photographers' images are also off his site, although use of lifted images in ads is another thing. As for the third thing, I hope he has learned his lesson, and that is enough for me.</p>

<p>No witch hunts, OK? It is good we continue to gather information, but let's hope we don't have to use it. And discussion about copyright infringement is also still open.</p>