Stolen image being used for commercial usage

[iconographer]

Minnesota

Thanks in advance for any advice I may get here!



The short version:

An image of mine is being used -for commercial purposes- without permission. I ask for payment; I'm being accused of extortion.



The back story:

I took an image at a boxing weigh-in a few years ago; woah and behold it's now being used on a series of promotional posters.



The long version (an edited version of my correspondence with the promoter) :



Greetings,

I'm <me> the owner/operator of <website>, a MN-based "Combat Sports Photography" website. It has come to my attention that <fight promotion> is using and has been using an image of mine for promotional purposes, that being of <a fighter>.

While I'm glad that the said image is to your companies liking, I am the photographer/copyright holder of this image, and no one has contacted me for commercial usage within your company of my work.

I'm hoping to solve this issue amicably, hence my contact to you here. I'm willing to offer you the same deal I offered <another promotion> when we were in a similar situation- $XXX for the use of my image, and the licensing for this image for this event is officially yours.

Respectfully,

<me>

you better call <the boxer's manager>

With all due respect <boxer's manager> doesn't own my work- I do. My camera, my photo, my copyright. Nobody but me has the original copy of this image. It doesn't matter if <manager> gave someone in your arts and crafts department permission to use the work of a 3rd party- you didn't get MY permission. Now as it stands you don't have my permission, and will not, until I'm paid for my work. My asking price is more than a fair one.

Also according to Mr <boxer> he didn't give you permission to photograph his likeness so once again call <manager> and stop harassing us

He stood in front of me and posed for it. That is implied permission, and I have photographic evidence, among several other photos he posed for.

Let's not convolute the issue. You're using an image of mine for COMMERCIAL USAGE WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.

Please pay your bill, and have a nice day.

Don't contact me again take it up with <manager>

<promotion> Boxing is using MY work without permission, not <the manager>. I don't care what <manager> told you, you didn't get MY permission to use MY work for commercial purposes.

I will be contacting you again- with an invoice for services rendered. Please pay it.

What is your phone number

Sorry, but everything I do is going to be in writing. It leaves little room for words being subject to interpretation.

The invoice has been sent.

I've spoken to my lawyer and he strongly suggest that you cease with your threats and harassment and take your issue up with the proper parties which you have been informed of who they are DO NOT CONTACT US AGAIN

Govern yourself accordingly

See, this is why we're not talking on the phone. The written word is perfectly clear, and you're still confusing the issue.

My correspondence with you is neither threat nor harassment- I'm informing you that

1. Someone in your company took it upon themselves to use an image of mine for commercial usage without consent.

2. That I offer commercial usage of my work (licensing) when I am financially compensated for work rendered.

3. That since this oversight was made- that my image was and is being used for commercial usage- that I expect to be compensated for said commercial usage.

4. That I've encountered this situation before, that I realize mistakes can be made, and how it came to an amicable resolution.

Again, I'm respectfully requesting that you pay the reasonable price I've set for the unauthorized usage of my intellectual property.

Extortion is a crime do not contact us any further

Plus if that is indeed you photo it absolutely horrible

I nor my company would never choose a photo like that

Go extort <the boxer's manager>

"Extortion" is heavyweight legalese, and in this instance and of my opinion, misappropriated.

So you think the image is "absolutely horrible". Yes, I agree. That's what happens when someone takes a low resolution image off the internet- without permission- manipulates, and incorporates it into promotional posters, which was never it's designed purpose.

Since we're discussing legal terms, you may care to familiarize yourself with the words "copyright", "copyright infringement", "intellectual property", and "unauthorized use" to name a few.

Now if I were less than a gentleman I would accuse you of blatant theft, which I have not. I've given you the benefit of the doubt that this could indeed be an honest mistake, offered an amicable and respectful solution, and in return have my integrity insulted, my photography insulted, and quite frankly, my intelligence insulted.

I apologize for repeating myself, but please bear with me- <manager> isn't the copyright holder of my intellectual property, and as such doesn't have any legal, moral, technical, or any other right to grant 3rd party permission for promotional usage of my work.

Now please, as a gentleman I'm asking you to pay me for my work that you're using. Just because the internet is wide open and an easy place to acquire images, it doesn't make it the lawless Wild West where anything goes.

 

[swalsh411]

Stop wasting your time with this clown. Your recourse is to sue them.

edit: He's also told you point blank not to contact him and you continue to harrass him.

And PS the wild west for the most part wasn't really that lawless.

 

[iconographer]

"He's also told you point blank not to contact him and you continue to harrass him"

That's an interesting take.

Yes, obviously suing him is an option. But I'm not sure how to proceed; the said promotion is in another state.

 

[Zigner]

Yes, obviously suing him is an option. But I'm not sure how to proceed; the said promotion is in another state.

Huh? You proceed by either suing him...or not suing him. Of course, a third option is to have an attorney write a letter for you. But, is it really worth it?

 

[iconographer]

Suing him could entail small claims court, or it could mean hiring a lawyer. I'd rather go to small claims court if it were a possibility, but I'm not sure it is considering we reside in two different states.

Worth it...

From a monetary standpoint, probably not. From an ethical standpoint, I wouldn't feel right about standing idly by and letting someone blatantly steal my work.

 

[Zigner]

Suing him could entail small claims court, or it could mean hiring a lawyer. I'd rather go to small claims court if it were a possibility, but I'm not sure it is considering we reside in two different states.

Worth it...

From a monetary standpoint, probably not. From an ethical standpoint, I wouldn't feel right about standing idly by and letting someone blatantly steal my work.

I'm fairly certain this is not a small claims matter...others will chime in

 

[iconographer]

Yeah, I'm not sure. But the amount I'm seeking is in the hundreds, not thousands...

 

[Zigner]

Yeah, I'm not sure. But the amount I'm seeking is in the hundreds, not thousands...

And the amount you'll spend is in the thousands, not the hundreds.

 

[ecmst12]

So sue him, in his state, in small claims court. You will have to travel to go to court, but that would cost less than hiring a lawyer.

 

[swalsh411]

"He's also told you point blank not to contact him and you continue to harrass him"

That's an interesting take.

Yes, obviously suing him is an option. But I'm not sure how to proceed; the said promotion is in another state.

You continue to contact him after he's in no uncertain terms told you not to. What other definition of harassment were you thinking of? It may not rise to the level of illegal harassment but you are harassing him.

 

[Zigner]

So sue him, in his state, in small claims court. You will have to travel to go to court, but that would cost less than hiring a lawyer.

I don't believe that copyright infringement is handled in small claims (or even in state court, for that matter)

 

[tranquility]

If the OP contacts the other party at this point other than to inform him he is going to sue (or service of the complaint), I believe he will have a problem. He may have already have one. Extortion? Probably not. But, see today's "The Volokh Consiracy" at http://volokh.com/ .

In part:

Injunctions Against Speech That “Ha a Substantial Adverse Effect … on … [a Person's] Privacy”

Eugene Volokh • May 24, 2012 12:28 pm

I’m writing an article that indirectly touches on this question, and I thought I’d ask our readers for their take on it. I’d particularly like to hear from people who are knowledgeable about privacy law, and who (unlike me) support information privacy speech restrictions, such as the disclosure-of-private-facts tort.

Minnesota has an interesting statute that allows courts to enjoin speech that “ha a substantial adverse effect … on the … privacy” of a person, Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.748. Five months ago it was used to issue an injunction banning online speech by a person about his ex-girlfriend, Johnson v. Arlotta (2011), but it has been used before as well.

I’m curious what people think of this — again, especially people who generally support the disclosure tort — given the lack of a statutory or judicial definition of what constitutes “privacy” for purposes of the statute, and the criminal penalties for violating the order. How should the statute be read, and is it constitutional? Should “privacy” be read as tortious invasion of privacy, with all the common-law twists on that (e.g., the exception for newsworthy speech, and the requirement that the speech be said to the public and not just as gossip within a circle of friends)? Is that sufficiently clear for an order that can be enforced through criminal penalties? Also, are temporary restraining orders under the statute — which may be issued ex parte — unconstitutional prior restraints?

Here’s the relevant excerpt:

(a) “Harassment” includes:
(1) a single incident of physical or sexual assault or repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship between the actor and the intended target;
(2) targeted residential picketing; and
(3) a pattern of attending public events after being notified that the actor’s presence at the event is harassing to another….

 

[iconographer]

Interesting article, but the promoter isn't in MN.

He no doubt started in with the "harassment", "contacted my lawyer" and "extortion" nonsense because like most other promoters I've had the displeasure of working with, he's cheap. I don't believe for a moment he had any legal council regarding my work, because if he had he'd know what he's doing is "theft".