Photos used commercially without permission

Hey guys,

Sort of in a situation... not really in it right now, but just wondering what options are available.

I did a shoot several months ago for a musician. I met this musician through a mutual friend who I trust. Photos came out really good, I liked it, musician liked it. This shoot was supposed to be just "practice" for him for future shoots. No contracts were signed, no recordable communication such as e-mail, text, voicemail, etc... all communication done in person. Yes, I know... lesson learned, I should ALWAYS use contracts no matter what.

I gave him full-res images with watermark on the corner.

I just recently noticed that this musician is releasing a single song on CD with my photo on the cover. My photo also has been edited by somebody (cut out background and placed onto another, watermarked cropped out). There was no communication about this. I have attempted to contact him but he has not answered any attempts. I've sent him FB messages and it states that he has read them all, but receive no replies.

I'm really unhappy with this guy. Even my friend said she was sorry about everything and she has attempted to get in touch with him too. What are my options? There was no contract signed.

From what I was told by fellow photogs, a photographer owns the image no matter what. An artist using my work for financial gain and commercial use without permission is considered theft. I will be contacting a lawyer sometime. What do you guys think will be the outcome? Do you think I will be receiving compensation for the CD sales?

Thanks!

Learn a lesson and move on. You'll most likely spend more on an attorney than you'll ever get back.

fashionrider wrote in post #16368076
Hey guys,

Sort of in a situation... not really in it right now, but just wondering what options are available.

I did a shoot several months ago for a musician. I met this musician through a mutual friend who I trust. Photos came out really good, I liked it, musician liked it. This shoot was supposed to be just "practice" for him for future shoots. No contracts were signed, no recordable communication such as e-mail, text, voicemail, etc... all communication done in person. Yes, I know... lesson learned, I should ALWAYS use contracts no matter what.

I gave him full-res images with watermark on the corner.

I just recently noticed that this musician is releasing a single song on CD with my photo on the cover. My photo also has been edited by somebody (cut out background and placed onto another, watermarked cropped out). There was no communication about this. I have attempted to contact him but he has not answered any attempts. I've sent him FB messages and it states that he has read them all, but receive no replies.

I'm really unhappy with this guy. Even my friend said she was sorry about everything and she has attempted to get in touch with him too. What are my options? There was no contract signed.

From what I was told by fellow photogs, a photographer owns the image no matter what. An artist using my work for financial gain and commercial use without permission is considered theft. I will be contacting a lawyer sometime. What do you guys think will be the outcome? Do you think I will be receiving compensation for the CD sales?

Thanks!

contact a lawyer, register the images with the copyright office. If they removed your copyright...go get them..they have lost the ability to claim innocent infringement, and even without registering the images, the penalties & fines have now gone up

"The DMCA can be found in Section 1200 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Section 1202 makes it illegal for someone to remove your “copyright management information” from your photo to disguise the infringement when used. The great news is that the copyright management information need only be your name, identifying information, or copyright notice to qualify."
(3) STATUTORY DAMAGES. . . .
(B) At any time before final judgment is entered, a complaining party may elect to recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of section 1202 in the sum of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000.
And the even better news? You don’t have to have registered your photo in advance to recover under this statute

Foodguy wrote in post #16368116
Learn a lesson and move on. You'll most likely spend more on an attorney than you'll ever get back.

Let's just say I don't care how much I spend on a lawyer. This CD could sell a lot and bring in a lot of $ to the artist, as he has done so in the past.

Foodguy wrote in post #16368116
Learn a lesson and move on. You'll most likely spend more on an attorney than you'll ever get back.

Really just give up...that's your best advice...By removing his copyright they screwed thenselves..so no, I would not be simply giving up..

digirebelva wrote in post #16368129
contact a lawyer, register the images with the copyright office. If they removed your copyright...go get them..they have lost the ability to claim innocent infringement, and even without registering the images, the penalties & fines have now gone up

"The DMCA can be found in Section 1200 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Section 1202 makes it illegal for someone to remove your “copyright management information” from your photo to disguise the infringement when used. The great news is that the copyright management information need only be your name, identifying information, or copyright notice to qualify."
(3) STATUTORY DAMAGES. . . .
(B) At any time before final judgment is entered, a complaining party may elect to recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of section 1202 in the sum of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000.
And the even better news? You don’t have to have registered your photo in advance to recover under this statute

now THIS is an answer that I wanted to see. THANK YOU for providing all this information AND even quoting sections from the copyright act. YOU ARE WONDERFUL.

Got another question. there are many photographers who use watermarks and some who don't. If someone really wants to steal your photo, removing a watermark isn't very difficult, so some photogs don't bother. However, they do embed their copyright info into the photo's EXIF instead. As an example, let's say I gave this artist his photos without watermark, but included my copyright info in the EXIF, I would still be able to recover statutory damages right?

Could you include a link to the process of registering my images for copyright?

digirebelva wrote in post #16368135
Really just give up...that's your best advice...By removing his copyright they screwed thenselves..so no, I would not be simply giving up..

Yup, that's my best advice based on the information given in the op. We have a musician, who participated in a photoshoot by a friend of a friend 'just for practice for future photoshoots' and who's contact channel is through FB, has amateur hour written all over it on both sides of the equation,imo.

I hope the OP keeps the thread alive through the process as I'm curious as to the outcome.

digirebelva wrote in post #16368129
contact a lawyer, register the images with the copyright office. If they removed your copyright...go get them..they have lost the ability to claim innocent infringement, and even without registering the images, the penalties & fines have now gone up

"The DMCA can be found in Section 1200 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Section 1202 makes it illegal for someone to remove your “copyright management information” from your photo to disguise the infringement when used. The great news is that the copyright management information need only be your name, identifying information, or copyright notice to qualify."
(3) STATUTORY DAMAGES. . . .
(B) At any time before final judgment is entered, a complaining party may elect to recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of section 1202 in the sum of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000.
And the even better news? You don’t have to have registered your photo in advance to recover under this statute

^^ This! Attorney's fees would also be covered.

noxcuses1 wrote in post #16368194
^^ This! Attorney's fees would also be covered.

EXACTLY

fashionrider wrote in post #16368144
now THIS is an answer that I wanted to see. THANK YOU for providing all this information AND even quoting sections from the copyright act. YOU ARE WONDERFUL.

Got another question. there are many photographers who use watermarks and some who don't. If someone really wants to steal your photo, removing a watermark isn't very difficult, so some photogs don't bother. However, they do embed their copyright info into the photo's EXIF instead. As an example, let's say I gave this artist his photos without watermark, but included my copyright info in the EXIF, I would still be able to recover statutory damages right?

Could you include a link to the process of registering my images for copyright?

I believe the copyright has to be visible for this to be in effect.

http://www.copyright.g​ov/eco/

Foodguy wrote in post #16368183
I hope the OP keeps the thread alive through the process as I'm curious as to the outcome.

Currently on copyright.gov website and reading up on everything. Created an account with ECO (Electronic Copyright Office). from initial readings, I will be registering a group of photographs.

One problem... government is currently shut down so they won't be processing anything until it is resolved. However, registration can still be submitted. damn you government shutdown

I'd say lesson learned...next time approach it professionally. Both sides looked like amateurs. Consider this a valuable lesson and move on.

Hogloff wrote in post #16368220
I'd say lesson learned...next time approach it professionally. Both sides looked like amateurs. Consider this a valuable lesson and move on.

lesson learned, definitely. Move on? No thanks. This artist disrespected me by using my photos for personal gain (potentially a large gain; he's fairly popular) without informing me, purposely removing my copyright info/watermark, and completely ignoring any of my attempts at contacting him. The cost for registering the entire set of photos created during the shoot is fairly cheap.

Although i'm definitely an amateur when it comes to legal things, my photographs definitely do not look amateur.

fashionrider wrote in post #16368144
now THIS is an answer that I wanted to see. THANK YOU for providing all this information AND even quoting sections from the copyright act. YOU ARE WONDERFUL.

Got another question. there are many photographers who use watermarks and some who don't. If someone really wants to steal your photo, removing a watermark isn't very difficult, so some photogs don't bother. However, they do embed their copyright info into the photo's EXIF instead. As an example, let's say I gave this artist his photos without watermark, but included my copyright info in the EXIF, I would still be able to recover statutory damages right?

Could you include a link to the process of registering my images for copyright?

How could you tell a court that a copyright text that can't be seen in your original file has been removed when they look at a CD with a print of that photo?

pwm2 wrote in post #16368263
How could you tell a court that a copyright text that can't be seen in your original file has been removed when they look at a CD with a print of that photo?

I'm not understanding your question completely... What do you mean by "text can't be seen in your original file"? Are you talking about the watermark? If so, then it's obvious that the artist purposely removed it for his own print.

If you're talking about the file exif data, then yeah, there's no way to show that the artist "removed it" since it's a print. However, the files I am submitted to the copyright office all have the original exif data in it.