Images grabbed from my site

[quincy]

So, xylene, you are advocating for the passage of a SOPA-like bill that can handle all of those hundreds of people in situations similar to photo guy?

I do not see photo guy's actions as "a vendetta." This hardly seems to be a quarrel over his rights in his images. The business is aware he has rights and they willingly, and immediately, removed the copyrighted images from their site. And now photo guy is entitled, under the law, to be compensated for the prior illegal use of his copyrighted works by this business.

Photo guy explained, by the way, that when he said "bill" he meant "demand letter." Without permission from, or a contract with, photo guy, the business cannot put the images back up (or, I suppose, they can, but then photo guy will have to send them another bill ).

 

[photo guy]

Someone used your web resolution sample artwork as a facebook avatar.

Your damages are easily in the high 5 figures.



The image is already taken down.

I suggest you see how far your trade organization is actually willing to go with your vendetta because I am quite sure there are hundreds of people in similar situations to your own fighting for an image to be simply taken down under far more expropriating circumstances.

Yes the avatar image has been removed but they are still displayed in the photo page. I was however quick and printed screen shots of the original postings as well as the admission of guilt.
I am asking for the amount I would normally charge for this service in the first place. I am a nice and fair guy at first**************..buuuuuut if they fail to respond in the next 24hrs... muhahaha (evil laugh) does anyone want to make some money? nudge nudge...

 

[xylene]

So, xylene, you are advocating for the passage of a SOPA-like bill that can handle all of those hundreds of people in situations similar to photo guy?

I do not see photo guy's actions as "a vendetta." This hardly seems to be a quarrel over his rights in his images. The business is aware he has rights and they willingly, and immediately, removed the copyrighted images from their site. And now photo guy is entitled, under the law, to be compensated for the prior illegal use of his copyrighted works by this business.

Photo guy explained, by the way, that when he said "bill" he meant "demand letter." Without permission from, or a contract with, photo guy, the business cannot put the images back up (or, I suppose, they can, but then photo guy will have to send them another bill ).

Actually I think the DMCA is just fine and has again proved it is worthwhile here.

I am merely pointing out that the compensation he is potentially owed should be weighed properly and that there is such a thing as quitting while you are ahead should the matter come to litigation.

The op (photo guy) clearly thinks this is a larger lesson to teach than it is.

 

[photo guy]

Actually I think the DMCA is just fine and has again proved it is worthwhile here.

I am merely pointing out that the compensation he is potentially owed should be weighed properly and that there is such a thing as quitting while you are ahead should the matter come to litigation.

The op (photo guy) clearly thinks this is a larger lesson to teach than it is.

How so?
The "lesson" would be don't steal wouldn't it. Sounds pretty simple. Again, I am not looking to get rich just paid what I am due.

 

[quincy]

I agree with you, xylene, that the DMCA takedown procedure has been an effective tool for getting infringed material removed from a site. It has provided a way for copyright holders to stop the infringement on their works without the expense involved in litigation.

There is a bigger lesson to teach, however, and how to teach it is definitely a question that needs addressing.

It appears there is a gap in many people's education when it comes to copyright infringement, because copyright infringement takedown notices, demand letters, threats of lawsuits and even lawsuits are filed by the hundreds every day. Almost every website will have a copyright notice posted somewhere on the site, warning users of infringement, but these notices are either ignored by many or, perhaps, not understood.

People come to this site with some regularity after receiving a settlement demand letter, puzzled by it and upset by it and angry over the amounts being demanded. Many find it hard to accept that using another's copyrighted work without permission is against the law or that the penalties for copyright infringement can be stiff.

I, for one, do not want the government given a broad power to remove websites that have infringed or that have in some way facilitated the infringement by others. But, unless people who use the internet start to respect the intellectual property rights of others, I can see that happening.

SOPA was seriously being considered and its passage would have placed way too much control over internet content in the hands of the government, stomping on all of our First Amendment rights in the process.

That said, copyright warnings posted on websites, watermarks and copyright notices placed on artwork, takedown notices, settlement demand letters and infringement lawsuits on a mass-defendant scale are not getting the message across. So the problem remains of how to teach internet users that, just because they find something on the internet, it does not mean the material is free to use for whatever purpose they wish to use it. I have no clue how to do this.

 

[xylene]

Again, I am not looking to get rich just paid what I am due.

How much do you believe you are due?

You think it is a lot.

I think, from agency experience, it would wind up being closer to next to nothing after you expenses are considered. Maybe even a net negative.

Good luck suing over your low res sample artwork some idiot used as an even lower resolution 100x100 avatar.

Firm principled stand like that will make you a fortune.

 

[xylene]

So the problem remains of how to teach internet users that, just because they find something on the internet, it does not mean the material is free to use for whatever purpose they wish to use it. I have no clue how to do this.

The broader public policy implications of Photo Guy(s) case are complex.

I don't think that the economic calculus here in this specific case is anything but simple.

Easy take down of extremely low value content along with admission and apology.

Shopkeepers don't take shoplifters to federal court over a stolen pack of gum.

Why would I want that as a regime for policing trivial violations of intellectual property?

 

[ecmst12]

OP has not said he's looking to get rich here and the amount in his demand is his NORMAL CHARGE for these services. Which is exactly what he should be asking for. If he has to proceed with litigation, obviously costs to him will increase so his demand will go up. This is what he does for a living, not a side job or a hobby, he has a perfectly legitimate reason to want to maintain the value of his work product.

 

[xylene]

OP has not said he's looking to get rich here and the amount in his demand is his NORMAL CHARGE for these services. Which is exactly what he should be asking for. If he has to proceed with litigation, obviously costs to him will increase so his demand will go up. This is what he does for a living, not a side job or a hobby, he has a perfectly legitimate reason to want to maintain the value of his work product.

How much does he normally charge for low res watermarked sample artwork?

Litigation over illegal use on principle? That is a time and money waster, not how a professional artist thrives and grows the value of their product.

 

[quincy]

I am not sure I agree with you, xylene, that infringement such as the type described here is "trivial," although I agree that it can, in many ways, be compared to the theft of a pack of gum.

The penalties for the theft of a pack of gum from a store will exceed the cost to purchase the pack of gum, much as the penalties for infringing on a copyrighted work often exceed the cost to purchase or license the copyrighted work. There are more than actual economic losses to consider in both cases.

You do not take things that do not belong to you and, if you do, you should be prepared to accept the consequences. The consequences for stealing gum can be paying several times the cost of the gum and the possibility of having a criminal record. The consequences for using copyrighted works without permission can be paying statutory damages.

As for the value of the photographs, very few photographers want their works represented in a poor fashion as it reflects poorly on them as photographers. They have the legal right to choose how their work is displayed to others, and who gets to display it.

 

[photo guy]

To answer the question as to how much I can or do charge for an image depends on how it is used, web, print, billboard, etc. where it will be used, local, national, international. How long do they want rights to the image, day, week, month, year, forever, etc.
Basically the more exposure the client is planning for the image increases its value. An avatar albeit a low res image is the first thing you notice when entering a company's site so it actually has a fair amount of value.

The good news is. I got paid today. After presenting the "could be" cost to him he settled on my normal fees and will not be re-posting the images.

Yea me. Score one for the industry.
Thank you all for your input and banter.
This is a great site.

 

[photo guy]

Oh and btw xylene, that little worthless avatar image netted me $1500.00. this doesn't include the other 2 images.
I am pretty sure this is how a "professional artist" makes a living.
Just sayin.

 

[quincy]

It is nice to hear that the company involved acted in a responsible fashion and paid you for the images that it used, photo guy. Good luck with your freelancing.

 

[wrongsometimes]

There has to be a way to stop grabs like this from happening all the time. I have a fat watermark in the middle of said images and it still didn't stop these guys. I hear of it happening all the time. Guess it is my turn. What are the community's thoughts on this? The Proffesional Photographers Association says they will fight for us in these situations.

Yes, stop posting the pics. Life would be simpler if the law was "anything you post on the internet belongs to mankind" & its the type of legislation I support.

It could be a five year old kid who did this .. you want them to get life in prison?

Our copyright laws are just goofy on this point....plus, there has been studies showing that giving stuff away free on the web is actually economically better for the artists.

 

[quincy]

Please cite these studies, wrong, because I find it hard to believe that any study shows that an artist gains economically by giving his work away for free.

Only criminal copyright infringement comes with the possibility of jail time, and it will not be "life in prison" (which is an absurd statement). Criminal copyright infringement charges are filed when the infringement is willful and when the infringement is for commercial gain and large amounts of money are involved. The government will not prosecute innocent infringers.

Most infringement will be handled as a civil action, resulting in awards of damages to the copyright holder.