Aircraft Sales Brochure copyright violation

Part of me is chuffed that Cabair has nicked my 'snap' of a 'plane to stick on their website.
But most of me is pretty bl**dy furious at their nerve.
TBH this is pretty well par for the course for them.

The violating web site is here
http://www.cabairaircr​aftsales.co.uk/G-OCCT.htm

Here's my email: (An hour in a DA-40 is currently £140)


FAO Simon Cooper, Cabair Aircraft Sales

Dear Simon,

Imagine my surprise when I saw my copyrighted picture of G-OCCT appearing on your website in direct breach of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

You will find the images you host at
http://www.cabairaircr​aftsales.co.uk/images/​G-OCCT-02.jpg
and
http://www.cabairaircr​aftsales.co.uk/images/​G-OCCT-03.jpg
are parts of an original photograph taken by me
http://www.abpic.co.uk​/popup.php?q=1065987

You will also find that the image at
http://www.cabairaircr​aftsales.co.uk/images/​G-OCCT.jpg
is a copy of a photograph taken by Chris Hall http://www.abpic.co.uk​/photo/1135299/
Who can be contacted here:
http://chrishall.fotop​ic.net/
(He may or may not have given you permission to copy and publish his work – if he has, then please accept my apologies)

I am more than happy for you to use my photograph for your sales brochure/website, all I ask is acknowledgement of the copyright and a link to my website www.adamwynne.com

(If you wanted to throw in an hour’s time on a DA-40 that would be fantastic)

You may want to point out to the people who prepare your website that they can’t just go around helping themselves to photographs from Air Britain.
Well, they can, but other photographers (who are perhaps not inclined towards Cabair, as one of their customers, as I am) may not be as generous.

Whilst I have your ear (as it were) perhaps I can bring to your attention the fact that the telephone number and web address for Cabair Aircraft Sales are incorrect on this page:

http://www.cabair.com/​contact.htm

Furthermore the ‘contact us’ link on the Cabair Aircraft Sales website does not work correctly. This might prevent you from carrying out your primary function of... selling aircraft.

Sincerely,

etc etc

Just another reason to put a © watermark & EXIF contact info in each shot. Good luck with them, & keep us posted.

Update - they have taken my photos off the site, but not had the decency to reply. Pah!

^ typical....

If you saved some screen shots of the site with your images, you could still rattle their cage with a letter from your lawyer?

Hi! Thanks for the heads up. I am working on a research and all your responses are really helpful. My friends told me to visit this forum and it's cool to learn a lot.

I had this happen as well. In order to save time instead of retyoing, I'll send you the link.

Just recently, something similar happened to this (and yours) when one of the pictures I took at a fly-in would up on a barnstomers.com ad. That one was also a headache because the barnstormers.com guy that contacted me was threatening to sue me for liable in a completely irrelevant way (and also said that he didn't violate Flickr's or my Copyright, and the man who used the picture went out of his way to rectify the situation, but the Barnstormers.com rep was completely being belligerent That incident unfolded last summer, but the link I'm posting you happened in 2006.
http://www.flickr.com …/19178908@N02/4​261260654/
According to the lawyer I contacted, copyright laws are tricky. Technically, even though to a degree pictures are copyrighted the moment you take the picture with your camera, they are not necessarily legally binding unless you pay $35 to get the official US Copyright from the copyright patenting. I have a funny feeling that statement will trigger rebuttal, but I'm just repeating what I was told in 2006 by my lawyer (who had just attended a seminar specifically on the matter).

No. They are still as legally binding, except that your lawyer can't expect the lucrative % payout for statutory damages or attorneys fees that he would get if you had registered the image. See #2: Copyright Myths Debunked

PhotosGuy wrote in post #11909613
No. They are still as legally binding, except that your lawyer can't expect the lucrative % payout for statutory damages or attorneys fees that he would get if you had registered the image. See #2: Copyright Myths Debunked

The other point is that for the OP that will not apply as he is based here in the UK where the Law is slightly different, of course as both UK and USA are bound by the Bern Convention the laws are substantially similar. Now we have the internet though it is much more likely that we will be seeing copyright infringements crossing national borders. In such a situation where would action for infringement be issued? In the country of the holder or the infringer? Or would you possibly choose based on which jurisdiction is likely to give you the best payout?

Alan

Ahh, I missed the UK part. Maybe you can find out here: http://en.wikipedia.or​g …law_of_the_Unit​ed_Kingdom