I'm being stolen from; being accused of "extortion"

[RDKirk]

Register the image and call a lawyer - the blog who cares, I'll usually just send them a cease and desist notice as my stuff is stolen all the time, but it's another example of the manager breaking the law giving out images he has no right to adding onto the suit as evidence. Need to stop beating around the bush and protect your rights - and if you're not gonna do that, then complaining about it is not going to help anything.

Yes. Do the first thing you should have done--and can still do within the next couple of hours: Register the image.

Then at least let a lawyer look at the situation and make a recommendation.

[hairy_moth]

Quote:
Plus if that is indeed you photo it absolutely horrible
I nor my company would never choose a photo like that

This floors me.. It has happened to me several times. I found my images on a website, I contact the owner and ask them to take it down (In my case, I never asked for money).
But as often as not, I get a response insulting the picture (which they apparently thought enough of to use on their site) and insulting me. I end up filing a DMC takedown notice with the ISP and the images have always come down; but the response still surprises me.

They last guy called me an amateur.. ooooh that really hurt my feelings. It is true, I am an amateur, but I think I was supposed to feel insulted.
So when I did send the DMC to the ISP, I cc'd him and he replied to me "now that image will never come down." The ISP took it down and send him a note explaining..

[sspellman]

Originally Posted by Brian Parkes

Personally I'd probably leave it.

he's not willng to discuss it and so your only option is legal. Is it worth pursuing purely based on benefit and costs of doing so? I'd argue probably not. I know there is a principle involved but you could end up wasting a lot of energy and money on it.

If you do not defend your property and the value of the services you deliver to a client, then the value of all photography will fall. It is possible to spend much time and energy on an issue only to fail to collect any money, but you simply cannot do nothing. I have had client images stolen and used commercially and if I did nothing to protect my client's investment, they would never hire me again.

Luckily there are intermediate steps of DMCA takedowns, notices to the subject of the photo/other promoters/printer/vendors, and other damage to the violators business will generally get some results.

[Bosscat]

Originally Posted by nicksan

Yeah, I'm not saying it's not wrong. It's VERY wrong. I probably would have emailed them as well asking them to take down the image and not use my image in the future. But you can't fix stupid. The world is never going to be a perfect place where everyone follows the rules. Impossible. So you just have to pick your battles.

Let's say the photo was worth $200. You need to decide whether the time spent corresponding to the offender, "lawyering up", a possible court date, etc, etc, is worth $200. Maybe it is. Maybe you have extremely high moral standards or a sense of right and wrong. I'd like to believe that I do too. However, I also realize that the world is flawed and sometimes it's just not worth the hassle. Obviously it also depends on how much $200 is worth to you. I can live without the $200, but that definitely may not apply to a lot of people. Personally, I have bigger fish to fry.

1. Well my image is on a website that was done by a web designer who really should know enough to double check that the images used on a website are legal to use.

2. These people can afford a pair of sprint cars and a semi trailer to attend races, yet think that I can drive 4 hours to a race, spend the night shooting and the time to edit and post photos for free?

3. And if myself and everyone lets stuff like this slide, we may as well forget about making money from photos. Its bad enough there are people out there selling stuff at a loss, but then to have folks think taking off the net is OK, its time that photographers everywhere drop the hammer on image theifs.

[sigma pi]

Originally Posted by hairy_moth

This floors me.. It has happened to me several times. I found my images on a website, I contact the owner and ask them to take it down (In my case, I never asked for money).
But as often as not, I get a response insulting the picture (which they apparently thought enough of to use on their site) and insulting me. I end up filing a DMC takedown notice with the ISP and the images have always come down; but the response still surprises me.

They last guy called me an amateur.. ooooh that really hurt my feelings. It is true, I am an amateur, but I think I was supposed to feel insulted.
So when I did send the DMC to the ISP, I cc'd him and he replied to me "now that image will never come down." The ISP took it down and send him a note explaining..

Sweet

[nicksan]

Originally Posted by sspellman

If you do not defend your property and the value of the services you deliver to a client, then the value of all photography will fall. It is possible to spend much time and energy on an issue only to fail to collect any money, but you simply cannot do nothing. I have had client images stolen and used commercially and if I did nothing to protect my client's investment, they would never hire me again.

Luckily there are intermediate steps of DMCA takedowns, notices to the subject of the photo/other promoters/printer/vendors, and other damage to the violators business will generally get some results.

Yeah, and that's fine. I might take those intermediate steps too. Doesn't really take too much time. But honestly, the floodgates have been open for quite some time now and IMHO, it's to a point where it's kinda of a lost cause.

There's really nothing wrong in being a crusader for the industry. Nothing. But I know a lost cause when I see one...unfortunate as this may all be.

[TooManyShots]

Originally Posted by jetcode

Did you get a model release form to offer the image for commercial purposes? If not there is no difference between you acting in your mind as a professional with such agreement and an amateur or fan who wishes to have a photo of his favorite boxer. The boxer does not make such distinction without a conversation leading to a model release form. In terms of lifting your image that is illegal and they should know better. They need your permission and you may request a fee but most likely you are going to spend far more on a lawyer than the image is worth. Respectfully ask to be credited for the image and let them use the low resolution copy. You will not make friends by claiming inalienable rights to your property when in fact the boxer has not signed an official release.

Wow, hold it there. Model release is only necessary if the photos would be used to promote a service or a business. That's what commercial usage is all about. What he (OP) is doing it is considered editorial. Release is not required. Whether or not the subject would consider the photo to be good enough to pay for it that's the question. What the promoter is doing with those photos is considered commercial. The promoter has to seek releases from the boxers instead, not the OP.

[Curtis N]

Originally Posted by jetcode

Respectfully ask to be credited for the image and let them use the low resolution copy.

I often wonder what it would be like to go through life without a backbone.

You seem to be confused about a few things.
1) The OP took a picture and posted it on the internet. That's not commercial use, and it doesn't require a model release. The promoter who used it commercially would need a release.
2) Your Neil Young reference was comical, and irrelevant. In this case the OP was invited to shoot.

[pwm2]

Originally Posted by jetcode

So I can shoot a model without release and sell the images to magazines, poster shops, art galleries, and the national enquirer without legal consideration? But if I want to advertise my business with the same images I need a model release form?

You are currently not in the game.

The OP hasn't sold the image. He has displayed it on a web site.

The thief are using the photo commercially. So the thief would need a model release.

Lack of model release doesn't make it legal to rip the image from the web site it was originally displayed on.

[Mark1]

Your are kinda getting it. In short anything that can be considered "art" does not need a model release. Art gallery and all, It could sell for 50 million.... still no release needed as it is art. IF you mass produce it into posters to sell to walmart it is considered commercial.... release is needed. If the posters are just mass produced "art" then back to no release. If you are selling it to a newspaper/magazine for a story... no release needed its editorial. if you are selling it to them to be used in an ad, then a release is needed. It gets pretty convoluted.

While in a round about way this is being used to promote the fight.... But it is THE BOXERS fight. So he is basicaly promoting himself.... No release needed. Just as you dont need a model release to sell someone thier own picture.

[john-in-japan]

What are you talking about?

Doesn't need written permission - Venue said he had no permission to shoot. Probably not a public spaceDoesn't need a model release (the person who printed the poster does). It would have helped, but since he had no permission and no contract - moot point Doesn't need a contract.
Copyright is his soon as he presses the shutter. Debatable
Registration is just a case of how much you get (big difference though). Agree
Watermark being lax does not give permission for them to steal it. Never said so)
Everyone is telling him to lawyer up. Best advice ever

[MJPhotos24]

Originally Posted by jetcode

So I can shoot a model without release and sell the images to magazines, poster shops, art galleries, and the national enquirer without legal consideration? But if I want to advertise my business with the same images I need a model release form?

99.9% of the time if you're shooting a model there's releases involved - this is not a model. Editorial usage you never need a release - a print is editorial, newspapers, magazines, etc. are all editorial. Advertising though is commercial, so of course if you want to use one of your images in an ad you need a release - only difference is you took the image so you do not have to pay for the rights to use the image.

Poster by the way is a commercial product, not sure what a poster shop is - but making them and selling as posters is considered commercial and thus need a release.

NO PHOTOGRAPHER can ever sell a commercial license unless you have the release (property, properties, likeness, etc). Commercial license is when you are telling the company they can use your image without asking the person in the image for a release because you already obtained those permissions and have it on contract. Marilyn Monroe I do believe is a famous case for that but been awhile since looking so may be wrong and confusing it with another case.

Originally Posted by Mark1

While in a round about way this is being used to promote the fight.... But it is THE BOXERS fight. So he is basicaly promoting himself.... No release needed. Just as you dont need a model release to sell someone thier own picture.

That's a little different - selling an image to the person directly they are the ones putting the image in the product (mug, keychain, etc). The photographer is not creating the keychains and then trying to sell them, so it makes things a little different.

In this case the printing company should have a contract that states the person ordering has the model release and copyright release of the image, the fact they went ahead and printed without either on file makes them liable (they may have an agreement that says otherwise, but you always name everyone in a lawsuit and see what sticks). Usually for athletes the manager has the rights to the boxers likeness (with limitations), so there should be a paper trail on it as the boxer himself is not making and ordering the posters. Baseball for example in their contract it says the teams they play for can use their likeness without releases on different products and what not - but there's paperwork somewhere on it - always has to be, or should be.

Originally Posted by john-in-japan

What are you talking about?

Doesn't need written permission - Venue said he had no permission to shoot. Probably not a public spaceDoesn't need a model release (the person who printed the poster does). It would have helped, but since he had no permission and no contract - moot point Doesn't need a contract.
Copyright is his soon as he presses the shutter. Debatable
Registration is just a case of how much you get (big difference though). Agree
Watermark being lax does not give permission for them to steal it. Never said so)
Everyone is telling him to lawyer up. Best advice ever

- Venue did nothing at the time of taking the image, after the image is captured ONLY a judge can rule the photo must be destroyed (deleted) and not made available. The only way a judge is going to rule that is if you broke the law to obtain the image and had due intention to break that law. If he was on a media pass or was allowed in with the camera as a fan that is not breaking the law, deal with this ALL THE TIME.

- Not even remotely close to a moot point because it is absolutely ILLEGAL to try and tell someone they can not sell an image they created and hold the copyright to without a judge ruling that the image must not be sold...and the only way it would be deemed that is, again, if he broke the law to obtain it.

- No, it's not - there's things called laws...and other places called Supreme Courts who have ruled on these laws.

- Nope, you just implied it with "no watermark" in the rest of that statement that makes no sense.

- Yet you told him to forget about it.

[RDKirk]

Originally Posted by john-in-japan

What are you talking about?

Doesn't need written permission - Venue said he had no permission to shoot. Probably not a public spaceDoesn't need a model release (the person who printed the poster does). It would have helped, but since he had no permission and no contract - moot point Doesn't need a contract.
Copyright is his soon as he presses the shutter. Debatable
Registration is just a case of how much you get (big difference though). Agree
Watermark being lax does not give permission for them to steal it. Never said so)
Everyone is telling him to lawyer up. Best advice ever

There is absolutely nothing debatable about his ownership of the copyright. Zero. Nada. Ownership of copyright is one of the tightest things we've got. Proving infringement can be debatable, but ownership almost never is because the issues surrounding it are as clear cut as who-shot-Oswald.

- Venue did nothing at the time of taking the image, after the image is captured ONLY a judge can rule the photo must be destroyed (deleted) and not made available. The only way a judge is going to rule that is if you broke the law to obtain the image and had due intention to break that law. If he was on a media pass or was allowed in with the camera as a fan that is not breaking the law, deal with this ALL THE TIME.

Actually, not even that.

The federal courts have already ruled that no issues regarding venue permission have any bearing whatsoever on copyright ownership. Even if he had been clearly trespassing, he would still have owned the copyright of the images. Why? Because according to the courts, copyright is enshrined in the main body of the Constitution itself--it's stronger even than the Bill of Rights in terms of "what the Founding Fathers intended." No state law can take it away. The only way the creator of a work loses copyright is if he transfers it in writing by his own agreement.

The courts have ruled that even if the photographer was trespassing, he owns the copyright. The state can prosecute him for trespassing, but he still owns the copyright. His use of the copyright can be limited by the Constitutional privacy rights of other persons, but he still owns the copyright.

[MJPhotos24]

Originally Posted by RDKirk

Actually, not even that.

The federal courts have already ruled that no issues regarding venue permission have any bearing whatsoever on copyright ownership. Even if he had been clearly trespassing, he would still have owned the copyright of the images. Why? Because according to the courts, copyright is enshrined in the main body of the Constitution itself--it's stronger even than the Bill of Rights in terms of "what the Founding Fathers intended." No state law can take it away. The only way the creator of a work loses copyright is if he transfers it in writing by his own agreement.

The courts have ruled that even if the photographer was trespassing, he owns the copyright. The state can prosecute him for trespassing, but he still owns the copyright. His use of the copyright can be limited by the Constitutional privacy rights of other persons, but he still owns the copyright.

I was not saying that he didn't own the copyrights, was basically trying to say what you said in the last part there - his rights can not step on others rights. Judge can rule they be deleted/destroyed/etc. because they were illegally obtained - but has nothing to do with if he owned the copyright to the images that were ordered to be destroyed in the first place.

[Alan-Chapman]

If you don't get experienced copy-write lawyer on this you will lose no matter how much in the right you are. Believe me I've been there!
Great advise on this thread , do it or drop it.
Cheers