john_h.1 Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>http://www.petapixel.com/2012/05/25/photographer-threatened-with-lawsuit-after-protecting-his-copyright/</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhbebb Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>A convoluted case which one feels would have been resolved much faster if the photographer had focused on securing a reasonable fee rather than (apparently) going straight to any insistence that the offending pic be removed. It looks as if he has backed down after being threatened with a counter-suit, which just MIGHT have succeeded on the basis that the photographer seemed obsessed with shutting down the woman's websites rather than getting payment and a credit.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>That's why you hire a lawyer to protect your interests instead of messing with it yourself, unless you really enjoy poking hornets' nests with a stick.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennisgg Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>That is just a crazy story. Steal from a dude and make him the victim. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_waller Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>The world's gone mad.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>I don't know if the world's gone mad, but it has certainly become more litigious. We seem to have forgotten how to settle differences amicably. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_livacich Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>David, you've got to be kidding. He is fully within his rights to demand takedown of any image of his which is being used without his permission. He is under no obligation to work something out.</p> <p>There is no law requiring niceness to thieves. The situation could very possibly have been settled amicably if she had not responded with such vitriol and unfounded allegations. She chose to make accusations publicly which had no demonstrable basis, and for which she had no proof.</p> <p>She could have apologized, explained the intended use, and worked something out with him, but she instead chose hostility. I doubt any suit would have gone very far, as the precipitating event in all this was her act of theft, in addition to the fact that she would have to prove her allegations.</p> <p>She's clearly a nutjob. Her words and behavior show that. She blamed him for the shutdown of her sites, when it was her own actions which led to it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>The manner in which the situation escalated is unfortunately quite common. It starts with strong assertions from both sides, and when that's not enough, it's followed by posturing and chest pounding often resulting in wrestling in the gravel until someone cries uncle; usually by the party with more to lose.</p> <p>Maybe this is the modern Internet culture to do things this way, but there is really nothing to be gained by doing it so publicly over what I see as maybe a few hundred dollars of realistic value in a small claims dispute. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhbebb Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p><em>David, you've got to be kidding.</em><br> Er ... no I'm not. There's a German saying "Recht haben und Recht bekommen sind zweierlei", which means approximately "Being right and getting your rights are two very different things". If anyone feels their rights have been abused, they need to cool down and ask themselves "What is my material loss here?" In the case here, this is a fee of $50 or less and a credit. If anyone wants to spend their life instructing lawyers, they can - the lawyers will be delighted, so will the lawyers' local Porsche dealers, but it's much better to be pragmatic and bring things to the fastest possible conclusion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_stobbs3 Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 It seems to me that he chose to retaliate rather than protecr his rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 ". . . the photographer seemed obsessed with shutting down the woman's websites rather than getting payment and a credit." "It seems to me that he chose to retaliate rather than protecr his rights." How does filing DMCA take-down notices to webhosts (a very standard procedure when copyright infringements are found on the web) constitute "retialiation" or indicate "obsession" with shutting down websites? If you read the full account, the photographer even wrote to the webhost for her sites giving permission to restore her websites while they worked things out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhbebb Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p><em>How does filing DMCA take-down notices to webhosts (a very standard procedure when copyright infringements are found on the web) constitute "retialiation" or indicate "obsession" with shutting down websites? If you read the full account, the photographer even wrote to the webhost for her sites giving permission to restore her websites while they worked things out.</em><br> I don’t know what you are referring to – from the PetaPixel story I understand that the first thing Lee did was to fire off DMCA takedown notices (at some cost to himself, I presume, no matter whether he did this himself or used a service).<br> This sends the message that Lee wants to fight, not talk. Given, as I said, that the material loss in this case is most likely $50 or less, I would consider this extreme overkill. Even if Lee then subsequently offered to let the putative offender keep using the pic pending negotiations (I would surmise less out of generosity than out of embarrassment at being depicted as being anti children’s charities), the woman in question seems to have been so riled up that she was in no mood to talk. It makes absolutely no sense for Lee to behave in this way!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>A Non-profit organization is still required to operate under the current legal system. "Borrowing" a image is not the way to go... The Non-profit use of funds to attempt a day-in-court over a "borrowed" image may be a less-than-grand idea.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 "(at some cost to himself, I presume" Mailing a letter, sending an email, or filling out an online form are not very costly procedures. "woman in question seems to have been so riled up that she was in no mood to talk" I think we have a fundamentally different view regarding the degree of concern one should have for the feelings of a thief who is using one's images in advertisements for for-profit businesses and political blogs. Also, I think it's quite reasonable that the a photographer should stop unlicensed use of his work. The fact that the law provides relatively-straightforward methods for accomplishing that goal would seem to support that it's a reasonable course of action, not one that "makes absolutely no sense." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daverhaas Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>Maybe I missed it, but did Godaddy take down all of her sites, simply because they orginated from the same IP Address / Owner? Or was the photo in question on all of her sites?</p> <p>To me - if the offending photo was only on one site, but Godaddy took them all down - that is / should be a complaint against them, not the person who filed the takedown.</p> <p>Secondly - it is not clear how she found out that he had filed a takedown - is Godaddy required to tell the site owner who is filing and why?</p> <p>Seems that she jumped the gun and made some pretty big assumptions and leaps of connectivity and conspiracy - as opposed to just saying - "Oh- I'm sorry - I saw this photo on line, I liked it and wanted to use it... How much do you want? or would you consider donating usage for some of my sites..."</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walter_degroot Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>YEA mike Dixon<br> a reasonablke vioce.<br> we do not know the photographers circumstances<br> no batter is this is his full or part timebusiness. it is his image<br> and the use of it is under his control,<br> not to be used to help the homeless? kids or elect a sheriff.<br> "stealing ' images comes up all the time here.<br> many think nothing about Borrowing a photo.<br> Big stores like wal-mart and drug store chaned will not allow 'copying<br />"<br> an image if it appears to be a pro image that may be copyrighted.<br> I ran into this with an 1898 photo of my grandmother.<br> Later wal-mart and oithers required a signature so they would not be sued.<br> I feel pretty safe as the photographer is not apt to arise and sue me or family menbers.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon_dragon Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>I would imagine this reasonable attitude might break down if a photographer's image ended up being stolen by a cause diametrically opposed to the photographer's views. What if, for instance, some lifelong Republican photographer's photograph became the symbol for the Democratic party or the reverse? Does the photographer have to allow that just in order to be reasonable? Shouldn't he have the right to say no? This isn't national security right? And the woman could have bought stock photos for very reasonable prices right?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_livacich Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>David B.-</p> <p>I disagree that filing a DMCA notice indicates that he wants to fight, not talk. It indicates to me that he doesn't want to fight- he wants the illegal use to stop right away. That's all. If he wanted to fight he could have written a nasty letter to the person using his image. He did what was most expedient. She chose to attack, when she has no moral or legal leg to stand on. There's no fight unless she decides to start one.</p> <p>He is not obligated to talk. Going the nice guy route takes time. If he were a busy pro the $50 or whatever might very well not be worth his time to talk. He certainly is not obligated to.<br /> If he had say, 10 violations by different site owners, he would have to have 10 separate conversations, and make let's say $500. Suppose he were a wedding photographer in the middle of the season, completely booked up. He might well be grossing that in an hour. Will those 10 conversations all take up only an hour by the time he's done? If so, he's only broken even on his time, compared to doing what he does for a living. And he's had to hassle with the whole thing, which might make it not worth it to him by itself.</p> <p>My point is, the onus is not on him. He is not the bad guy. How he handles it is his business. He is not the one violating copyright law. He has every right to control use of his image as he sees fit. He does not have to make nice with people who take and use what is his. If that woman had appropriated his vehicle for her charity's use, would he be required to negotiate a solution?</p> <p>I'm not even defending his actions per se; I'm defending his right to handle it the way he did, without being regarded unfavorably for it.</p> <p>What she did is not uncommon for persons caught in an uncomfortable position. They go on the attack and try to make the other guy look bad, to divert attention from their own actions.<br /> Now, we do have a saying that "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." But most folks don't want to spend the time and effort putting out the honey and disposing of it after, so they just use a flyswatter.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard__ Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>I have never found that nicely asking people to remove a 'borrowed' image from their web site has resulted in a effective resolution to their act of thievery. All it has done is gotten me ignored.</p> <p>So to me a DMCA takedown notice is likely the best spot to start working from in this new internet age.</p> <p>I must admit though that I'm uninterested in wasting much of my own time on these acts of theft, I have though been quite resistant to posting any newer images on the web which can be readily accessed because of it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhbebb Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p><em>I think we have a fundamentally different view regarding the degree of concern one should have for the feelings of a thief who is using one's images in advertisements for for-profit businesses and political blogs.</em><br> I agree! To put this in context, trying googling "Bebbington Bowie" or similar, as I do sometimes purely out of interest. This reveals that historical pictures of David Bowie by me have been posted on scores of fan websites, blogs, etc. In my case, the matter is complicated by the fact that full-res unwatermarked files have been distributed in the past in press packs by the various galleries that have shown these pictures. From time to time, I check that no one is selling hi-res pictures, otherwise I do nothing, basing my decision, as mentioned earlier, on the principle of material loss. The material loss to me of a fan putting my picture on a website or blog is zero, getting it removed would be costly (my standard hourly billing rate for desk-based work is $80), so I conclude any reaction by me to illegal postings would be pointless.<br> If anything, I am more concerned by third-party business directory websites which list my company without my permission, very often stating that I offer portraiture, wedding and film processing services (I don’t) and also in many cases quoting some bizarre figures garnered from my annual company return which somehow show I am bankrupt, with liabilities far exceeding assets (the company has no liabilities except for short periods between my receiving a tax demand and paying it). As all my work is obtained through word of mouth, not advertising, this again means no material loss for me, but it does make me mad! Fortunately 45 years in business have taught me to think very hard before running to a lawyer – in this time, I have accrued in total less than $7000 of bad debt, in one case I sued and won for $5000, in another I sued and won for $1500 (barely worth while, but the guy in question was a total jerk and had annoyed me!), the other $500 was owed in small amounts by “friends” of friends, I wrote it off without question. I cannot imagine any business person who would not operate in this way when it comes to deciding if claims are worth pursuing or not.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 David, he didn't find his photo being used by overenthusiastic fans on fan sites and blogs; he found his photo being used to advertise (among other things) for-profit consulting services. Someone else was using his photo to help generate money for her business. That is why the photographer filed a DMCA take-down notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>David Hass,</p> <p>If she only has one hosting account but several domains the only way Godaddy can stop access to that one image on any one site is to suspend the hosting account. Even if you prevent connection to a specific url you can still navigate to it if it is within a hosting account with multiple domain names.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted June 14, 2012 Author Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p>The plot thickens... http://thunderfeeds.com/reader/news/copyright-infringer-tries-to-shut-down-reporting-on-her-infringement</p> <p>Allegedly.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhbebb Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p><em>David, he didn't find his photo being used by overenthusiastic fans on fan sites and blogs; he found his photo being used to advertise (among other things) for-profit consulting services. Someone else was using his photo to help generate money for her business. That is why the photographer filed a DMCA take-down notice.</em><br> Absolutely correct, but I still say - proportionality!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhbebb Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 <p><em>The plot thickens... <a href="http://thunderfeeds.com/reader/news/copyright-infringer-tries-to-shut-down-reporting-on-her-infringement" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a></em><br> <em>Allegedly.</em><br> Take any average member of the public (the woman with the website surely cannot call herself a professional of any kind), get them riled up about their rights, add a gallon of gasolene from a container marked "Lawyer", and in the words of Damon Runyon, you've got a one-way ticket to Palookaville!</p> 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