ripped off

[eeek]

I recently found a company has taken one of my pictures and is using it on their web site. They even claim a copyright for it. Is it worth going after damages and if so, how do I find someone to handle the case?

 

[racer72]

How much is the picture worth to you? It has to be of value to sue over the use of it.

 

[eeek]

The picture is a high resolution scan of a 4x5 original. I certainly consider it to have value. How would a court decide if I was correct?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Do you see those RED words up there?

IAAL

 

[eeek]

California

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

I recently found a company has taken one of my pictures and is using it on their web site. They even claim a copyright for it. Is it worth going after damages and if so, how do I find someone to handle the case?

My response:

Here are your rights under the following applicable law, and your measure of damages.

Good luck.

IAAL



CALIFORNIA CODES
CIVIL CODE
DIVISION 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS
PART 1. RELIEF
TITLE 2. COMPENSATORY RELIEF
CHAPTER 2. MEASURE OF DAMAGES
ARTICLE 3. PENAL DAMAGES

Current through end of 1999-2000 Reg.Sess. and 1st Ex.Sess.
and urgency legislation through ch. 109 of the 2001 Reg.Sess.
and ch. 13 of the 2001 1st Ex.Sess. and Nov. 7, 2000 election


§ 3344. Use of another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for advertising or selling or soliciting purposes

(a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing such profits, the injured party or parties are required to present proof only of the gross revenue attributable to such use, and the person who violated this section is required to prove his or her deductible expenses. Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties. The prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney's fees and costs.
(b) As used in this section, "photograph" means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission, of any person, such that the person is readily identifiable.
(1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.
(2) If the photograph includes more than one person so identifiable, then the person or persons complaining of the use shall be represented as individuals rather than solely as members of a definable group represented in the photograph. A definable group includes, but is not limited to, the following examples: a crowd at any sporting event, a crowd in any street or public building, the audience at any theatrical or stage production, a glee club, or a baseball team.
(3) A person or persons shall be considered to be represented as members of a definable group if they are represented in the photograph solely as a result of being present at the time the photograph was taken and have not been singled out as individuals in any manner.
(c) Where a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person using the photograph or likeness appearing in the advertisement or other publication prepared by or in behalf of the user is only incidental, and not essential, to the purpose of the publication in which it appears, there shall arise a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence that the failure to obtain the consent of the employee was not a knowing use of the employee's photograph or likeness.
(d) For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a).
(e) The use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a) solely because the material containing such use is commercially sponsored or contains paid advertising. Rather it shall be a question of fact whether or not the use of the person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a).
(f) Nothing in this section shall apply to the owners or employees of any medium used for advertising, including, but not limited to, newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks and stations, cable television systems, billboards, and transit ads, by whom any advertisement or solicitation in violation of this section is published or disseminated, unless it is established that such owners or employees had knowledge of the unauthorized use of the person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness as prohibited by this section.
(g) The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative and shall be in addition to any others provided for by law.

 

[eeek]

This isn't a photograph of me. It's a photograph that I produced. A work of art.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

This isn't a photograph of me. It's a photograph that I produced. A work of art.

My response:

Then, you should have been more specific in your original post. Moving on to the next writer.

IAAL

 

[eeek]

I would have thought I was clear enough since this is a forum about copyright, patents, and trademarks. All of which are federal. There was no reason for you to be so rude.