Copyright Infringment?

Here is my picture:

http://www.flickr.com …in/set-72157594574462961/

Here is the link to it's illegal use:

http://www.cmdance.org​/ (click on Balboa Blowout)

My images are not registered with US copyright. I do not have model releases.

I sent an email asking for removal. What is my next step?

Call a lawyer and have him take care of it. I have had a few people do that to me including some bigger websites and they immediately took it off when I emailed them.

Sure looks like they pimped your image.

Without registration, your road is more difficult but you do have the power of being the copyright holder. I'm not entirely sure, but seeing as no one is recognizeable in the shot, the model release question may be moot.

If it were me and I was really fired up about it (as I'm sure you are...) my next step would be to find a lawyer to send a C&D on his/her letterhead.

You could always send them an invoice for license to use the image for 1 year, 5k per year if you'd like. What's the image worth to you?

Looks like a happy ending...

Hi there Todd,

It appears that you are the Webmaster and Graphic Designer for CMDance.org

It has been brought to my attention that you are using a photograph that belongs to me without my permission.

The photograph has been published on my flicker account since February of 2007.

http://www.flickr.com …in/set-72157594574462961/.

Please cease and desist from using my photograph immediately.

In the future, if you would like to use this photograph or any other photos from my collection to promote your organization, please contact me at meepee@hotmail.com.

I will be glad to establish limited use of any of my photos for a fair price.

Regards,
Philip



Hi Phillip.

I apologize for my use of your photo. You are a very talented photographer. I like to continue to use the photo, but I understand if you are upset. It will take me a day or so to do another design for the picture on the web. Please be patient as I work on this.

Regards,
Todd



Thank you for your quick reply.

If you are interested in using any pictures let me know your usage and I'll work up pricing.
I have many pictures in my off line portfolio too.

Thanks again,
Philip

I tried not to sound tyrannical.

Would be nice if he bought usage, but I'll probably never hear from him again.

Yea, you showed him. Now he'll probably go steal another image because he see's no consequences for his actions.

Yup. He's going to be jacking another image from someplace. "Please give me a day or two to design another picture for use on the web."

No. Your terms were to cease and desist immediately. He cannot have another day or two to keep your image up there, he would need to remove it ASAP.

Why is it that so many react that the first step should be to get a lawyer. Given that it is an unregistered image the lawyer could very well cost you more than you would get out of it. The webmaster does not acknowledge that he was the one that took the image nor does he blame anyone else. Given that the staff area has a number of people it would most likely get blamed on someone that would plead ignorance of the law in front of a judge and what you get out of it would be dependent on what judge you draw.

I have had this happen a few times to me and only once did I have to resort to a letter from my lawyer to get them to pull down the images. They had cropped off my watermark as well so they new full well that they were protected by the © on the image. I could possibly see where the person browsing the various image sites might get misled in this instance. Under the "Additional Information" on the Flickr page it does say that it is has all rights reserved followed by a line saying that this photo is public. To the untrained person this could be misleading. This whole situation may have been avoided with appropriate watermarking. This type of thing is going to continue and the best approach, imo, is to partially protect yourself with watermarking that makes it very clear that you copyright your images.

I am glad that you feel happy with the outcome. I doubt that they will feel that this gives them license to go out and do it to another photographer. They may but then they may also know that people are watching. It is a very nice shot and given that there is nothing recognizable of the persons (other than their names on the description) a model release would not be required.

m33p33 wrote in post #5517947
Looks like a happy ending...

Hi Phillip.

I apologize for my use of your photo. You are a very talented photographer. I like to continue to use the photo, but I understand if you are upset. It will take me a day or so to do another design for the picture on the web. Please be patient as I work on this.

Regards,
Todd

I tried not to sound tyrannical.

Would be nice if he bought usage, but I'll probably never hear from him again.

Have you seen the photo he's using now?

Hmmmmm...

Doesn't look like he stole it. Looks like he may have taken it himself. Or got a friend to.

Either way, it's not in the same league as yours. Not even the same sport!

tcphoto1 wrote in post #5518301
Yea, you showed him. Now he'll probably go steal another image because he see's no consequences for his actions.

Showed him what? I have no intent for retribution, only to make them stop using my photo for free. The event they are promoting is 8 months away anyone who saw the original banner will have long forgotten it by then.

You can't lay into to every person who throws you a dirty look in life. I politely asked him to take the photo down or compensate me and he did.

I would have been honored to have my image used on someone's website..., and considering they are a non-profit, educational organization, perhaps would have allowed usage in exchange that he added my name as credit an a link to my webpage. It would be good exposure for me.

Edit to add... I agree that he should not use the image without permission, don't get me wrong on that.

You don't need to have your images copyrighted..just the fact you took the image, the copyright is already yours...yes, talk to a lawyer and sue them for copyright infringement.

Too bad I an no where near Colorado: they look like they could really use a photographer.
I can't believe that you sent a C&D email and the response was no, not right now.

Shooting wrote in post #5523121
You don't need to have your images copyrighted..just the fact you took the image, the copyright is already yours...yes, talk to a lawyer and sue them for copyright infringement.

Shooting...have you ever tried to sue someone over copyright infringement in regards to a photo? Go ahead...I dare you. As ssim said, in most cases you're going to end up spending considerably more for the lawyer than you will ever receive as a settlement (assuming you can even get a lawyer to represent you let alone a judge to hear your case)...registered copyright or not. This isn't a matter of "right" and "wrong" and it's not even a matter of the law, it's the simple, cold, hard truth. Unless someone like Walmarts uses your image in a multi-million dollar ad campaign, in 99% of photo theft cases, the plaintiff isn't going to get squat -if- they can even get their case heard. Most of the the time you'll end up spending several thousands of dollars in lawyers fees (or more) and possibly several years in litigation and you'll be lucky to get a $500 settlement. That's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I don't mean to sound rude or harsh, but as a person who's not only a photographer, but who's got over 20 years in the music biz and has a very good understanding of intellectual property, this whole business of "get a lawyer and sue them" is petty, childish and rather pathetic...it reminds me of a selfish little kid running around hugging his toy yelling "Mine! Mine! MINE!"...ya just gotta love good old fashion greed. Maybe we should just sue Canon, Nikon and Olympus, etc., for making the darned cameras in the first place! If we didn't have the cameras then we couldn't take pictures and our work wouldn't get stolen! God Bless America! Yea...let's sue them all! (I am being sarcastic here of course). To be perfectly blunt, lawsuits in regards to photo theft simply don't work and it's rather naive to think otherwise.

This is a very simple issue...if you don't want your work stolen, DON'T POST IT ON THE INTERNET! Water marks don't work. Disabling the right click on your website doesn't work. Even having your copyrights registered doesn't work. Threatening people with lawsuits DOESN'T WORK. If your -that- paranoid about someone stealing your images, do NOT post them on the internet and for that matter, don't even display them in public where someone can take a snap shot of it with a cell phone. Simply lock it up in a hermetically sealed box and stow it away under lock and key where no one will ever see it...that is after all what art and photography are about right? .

I will say that I think m33p33 handled this the right way. He politely asked that the image be removed and so it was. Considering "the reality" of the situation, I'm not really sure anyone could ask for more. My congrats to m33p33 for being an adult over this situation.

Peace,
Jim

Shooting wrote in post #5523121
You don't need to have your images copyrighted..just the fact you took the image, the copyright is already yours...yes, talk to a lawyer and sue them for copyright infringement.

y
Well, thats all about to change now isn't it. Since we are so lazy as to not register our images, the powers that be have seen fit to start taking that away from us. If you haven't already done so, you need to read up on the Orphan Works bill.

Would you be upset if the bill passed an everything you have shot to date is no longer protected under copyright? Even if you registered it in the past? Yup, its coming down the pike if we don't stop it.

That automatic copyright protection you instantly get when you press the shutter, gone. The registered copyright you currently have after taking the time to register the images with the copyright office, also gone. If you have film, slides, etc, unless you scan them and submit them to be registered, they will not be protected. Yes, even if you registered them in the past. You need to register them. Think of what that means to a photographer that has 20K images in his library right now, fully registered with the US Copyright Office. Once the bill passes, the copyright will cease to exist, and the photographer will need to re-register again for protection!

If it cost $1 a slide to scan (they need to be digital registrations), thats $20K in scanning fees alone. Then there will be the registration fee on top of that. This can add up fast.

If you are serious about photography, please at least listen to the first five minutes of this interview.

http://www.sellyourtvc​onceptnow.com/orphan.h​tml

It will give you a pretty good run down of the Orphan Works bill without taking all the time to research it. And if you don't want your images stolen legally, take a couple minutes and do a search for Orphan Works, and write a letter or two with your thoughts to the right people. There are many links with pre-written letters, and appropriate addresses that you can send them off to.

This is really a very good cause, and worth a half hour of your time. It WILL impact you in the future, and I'm sure you will be upset about it them. We have a chance to do something about it now.