Sean Peele Back with Copyright Infringement with aglimpseofyouphotography.com

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>Why not just call him and talk to him? His phone number is on his site.</p>

[melissapapajphotography]

<p>He won't answer any calls...I think we should...I could use a nice trip to So. Cal :)</p>

[rt_jones]

<blockquote>

<p>He won't answer any calls...I think we should...I could use a nice trip to So. Cal :)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>How does he know it's you?</p>

<p>And concerning the thievery... how is this guy getting your stuff without watermarks?<br>

<br /></p>

[picturesque]

<p>OK folks, we don't need that kind of talk. Let's keep things to what we c<strong>an</strong> do...legally. Again, the first step is taking a screenshot(s) of your image(s) on his site. Then contact him (e-mail is good, since you need to include the screenshot), and request that he take your image down. The last time around, I did the above, and he took my images down. If he doesn't, the next step is to file a DMCA complaint.</p>

<p>While there is nothing that photo.net, as an entity, can legally do about this issue, this thread can serve as a place to share victims' information and experiences. There isn't a lot victims can do together, unless one of you has registered your images, in which case, a class action can be made. But if the website provider receives many DMCA complaints, it may choose to take the website down. This is if Mr. Peele decides to ignore the various requests for removal of images--which, again, has got to come from each individual victim.</p>

<p>Let's keep focused on our goal of getting each victim's image(s) taken off his site. And let's use this thread for sharing information.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>RT--I am sure Mr. Peele is leery of answering phone calls by now. Read the thread about the previous incident.</p>

<p>Also in the previous thread, you will see that anyone can get any image, once it is online. Sometimes it is harder, but not impossible. Your only defense is putting watermarks all over your image so it would be difficult to retouch out.</p>

<p>Melissa--thanks for the screenshot. I just want to keep track of the images used without permission. Have you sent an e-mail with the screenshot attached, asking for removal?</p>

[mbbrown]

<p>Nadine, found my image on his site. I wrote him a VERY strongly worded, though professional, letter requesting its immediate removal from his site. Told him next step would be pursuing it through the legal system.</p>

<p>Here is a screenshot:</p>

<p> </p>

[Member69643]

<p>You know, if none of you are going to do anything legal, you're going to be chasing this guy from site to site forever...</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Wolfeye--there is no other 'legal' thing to do. Legal things to do are as stated above. File a DMCA complaint. Only if one of the victims has registered his or her images can a class action suit be started. Read Bob Atkins' information in the previous thread.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Class actions can be costly and burdensome. Perhaps the state has a consumer protection entity that can take action. The Attorney General office in my state frequently takes action on fraudulent advertising. Also, a local photographer association might (big might, but, might) use its resources to seek an injunction or other unfair trade practice remedies to prevent unfair competition of the sort asserted here. While criminal penalties for infringement is usually only seen in larger commercial context, repeated infringement activity may motivate local competition and copyright owners affected to determine if the activity rises to the type where criminal penalties can apply. A complaint made to the proper authority can be sought in that event.</p>

<p>Indeed, there may be 'other legal things' to do in situations where the type of conduct described here takes place.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Judge Brown will to sort him out.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>The "location" of the Internet makes it difficult for this to fall within a state's jurisdiction. If you look at his script/source code, it's clear he planned ahead for this... code is clean and clear of any indication of author, source, and is as sterile and spartan as you can get and still run.<br>

This guy is going to resurface everytime you whack the mole.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>The "location" of the Internet makes it difficult for this to fall within a state's jurisdiction.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The internet here is merely an advertising medium and the means of alleged infringement and misrepresentation, not the be all and end all. "This guy" physically exists, operates, markets in a particular state and competes with photographers in that state. Classic jurisdiction creating activity. There could even be the necessary "minimum contacts" to establish jurisdiction as to infringement in other states as well.</p>

[john_h.1]

 

<p>Tim, That sort of talk is not helpful.<br>

[i'm guessing the comment I refer here to has just been deleted]</p>

 

[blairhall]

<p>I went through all the comments here and I may have missed it, but has anyone else noticed in the "About Us" section, that the name "Jerry" is referred to as well? Looks like Mr. Peele has a partner in crime?</p>

<p>Might be a completely irrelevant detail, but interesting nonetheless... and makes me wonder if a) Jerry actually exists and b) if he's got his own site ripping people off too.</p>

[melissapapajphotography]

<p>I did notice that and thought the same thing too...whoever he is...they aren't facebook friends...I tried that route</p>

[jennifer_r2]

<p>I'm not from California, but I am guessing they have similar requirements to most states as far as business licensing and registering dba/fictious business name reqiurements, and while its possible this photographer has complied with all such requirements, I wouldn't be surprised to find out he hasn't. If I was someone whose images had been misappropriated, it might be worth it to write a letter to bring this to the attention of the appropriate state licensing authorities. Any violations on his part in licensing requirements could result in fines from the municipality. I also noticed that the telephone number comes back as a landline, and for $4.95 one of those online search companies says they can provide you with the physical address if you needed to serve legal papers or official documents.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Melissa and Edward--have you contacted Sean Peele to ask him to remove your image(s)?</p>

[Dave Gardner]

<p>Nadine,</p>

<p>I just want to thank you again for the heads up. Also Jeff Spirer and Bob Atkins for the info on the ISP. This Peele guy is real piece of work.</p>

<p>Thanks again,</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[picturesque]

<p>You are welcome Dave. Please let us know the results after you contact him for removal of your images. So far, I have not seen one image removed. This is not a good sign, and perhaps a sign that Sean Peele is going to ignore any such requests.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here in the world of printing there was very little of this monkey business pre digital; before color copiers; before great "xerox" type machines.</p>

<p>Then BBS's grew; then the web/internet and it is a real mess.</p>

<p>Sadly this stuff of copyrights; folks having others use their images is very widespread.</p>

<p>A certain fraction of folks view the internet as a sea of *free stuff*; even usable for their own commercial applications.</p>

<p>In the old days folks did not give away their images; they held on to the originals and each copy got stamped. I worked for a studio in Indiana in the 1960s that if you did not do this; you got fired.</p>

<p>Fast forward to today and watermarking or markings prints is OUT/out of vogue; and web advertising is about free.</p>

<p>One has the situation where your beloved images get nicked off the web and re-used .</p>

<p>It is naive of folks to assume a person with no integrity is going to learn; change or even care. It is in their DNA to pluck all the free goodies you dangle out there. Think of them as rats.</p>

<p>I hope folks here catch your current rat and be too more vigilant with your dangling of juicy images.</p>

<p>For each rat you catch there can be a lot more you never catch; thus if one reduced the sources of free food the rat population can drop. </p>

[jennifer_r2]

Has anyone contacted any San Diego media? The potential scammed bride angle may add some local interest.

 

Also, I was wondering if anyone who has had images stolen has contacted the subject of the image? It would seem that they may have a cause of action since they were used to advertise/promote a product without permission or compensation. Impractible for most to pursue, but if any happen to live in CA, it might be worth it for them to look into small claims court or send a letter with an offer to settle for past use of their likeness for promotional purposes.

[melissapapajphotography]

<p>Nadine - I called him and left him a message along with sending an email to remove my image from his website - But I think he is ignoring us all...<br>

Jennifer - I have not let my bride know, but it is kind of humorous that he chose that particular image because it is our nanny and her new hubby...lol. I probably should let her know :)</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>I e-mailed a TV station in SD about it. Haven't heard back. If they get several it might pique their interest.</p>

[ned1]

<p>what was the TV station? I'll send one two</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Looks like the site has been taken down.</p>