Copyright Infringements and a 5 year old....

TheBurningCrown wrote in post #11819207
...you're missing the point. If you extend this logic it means that just because you took pictures of this bike doesn't mean that they're your pictures (you gave them to your friend, right?). Just because you shot pictures for somebody doesn't mean that you own them. Except that copyright doesn't work like that.

From your description it's not clear whether the paint on the bike is defined as a work of art or not. From your (albeit lacking) description she might have a case that you were infringing on her rights by using her work to promote yourself...

She's clearly in the wrong for using your photos, the question is whether or not you are as well.

But again - IANAL!

Using your logic, your saying that any photographer that has ever taken a picture of a painted object and not gotten a release from the painter is in the wrong?

Executive Images Photo wrote in post #11819399
Using your logic, your saying that any photographer that has ever taken a picture of a painted object and not gotten a release from the painter is in the wrong?

No, that's using your logic. I'm saying that (generically speaking) any photographer that has taken a picture of someone else's copyrighted work and then used that photo commercially is in the wrong.

TheBurningCrown wrote in post #11819524
No, that's using your logic. I'm saying that (generically speaking) any photographer that has taken a picture of someone else's copyrighted work and then used that photo commercially is in the wrong.

No thats how I read your post by reading what you typed. You never once in any previous post mentioned about her work being copyrighted. Now that you say it like that I understand what your saying BUT it still makes no sense. Also her paintjob wasnt copyrighted. I dont even know if you can copyright the paint job. Maybe a certain design but not the whole paintjob.

Executive Images Photo wrote in post #11802141
Do I need to hire a lawyer for that? I have one if I need to but I hate asking for favors (since I have asked before). Maybe go on lawdepot and pay for the form and add my info to it? Then I could send it certified. Whats your thoughts on that?

I would hire a lawyer. A cease and desist letter is just a letter - there is no form for it. The thing you are really paying for is the letterhead. If the letter is coming from a law firm, it shows that you mean business. A cease and desist letter shouldn't take the lawyer more than a half hour.

Executive Images Photo wrote in post #11822387
No thats how I read your post by reading what you typed. You never once in any previous post mentioned about her work being copyrighted. Now that you say it like that I understand what your saying BUT it still makes no sense. Also her paintjob wasnt copyrighted. I dont even know if you can copyright the paint job. Maybe a certain design but not the whole paintjob.

I'm going to be stepping out of this thread.

Register your photos and good luck in court!

chiming in... it does not seem that the photographer has or intended to use the photo of the bike (key word), that happens to have been painted, for commercial use. either way if taking a photo of the paint on the bike is copyright infringement then taking a photo of the bike itself would be too. i dont see how it would be though since the owner of the bike paid for the bike and paid for the paint job. the paint job itself is most likely a commissioned job and if custom the bike owner would assume he owns it. i doubt in either case that the owner of the bike signed a copyright restriction for either. thus he should be able to have a friend take a photo of "his" property and do with it what he wants whether he paid this friend or not. even if he made a million bucks off showing the bike the painter has no right to that money.

that said, the photographer owns the photo. now if he gave it to his friend and his friend gave it to someone and somewhere down the line the painter ended up with the photo the photographer is SOL. he should have given the photo to his friend with certain use restrictions. if the painter stole the photo off his site then that is copyright infringement. the thing to clear up is how the painter came to have possesion of the photo file?

and generally speaking, if i saw a shirt that said xxx photography sucks i would probably go check out their site. if your work sucks i would laugh and go about my day. if it is good, however, i would probably think it was a publicity stunt. either way i went to your site and made my own decision.

the lesson is: some people suck, and people like this only get worse the more you respond. just leave it alone unless they do physical or severe character harm.

Just recently a rapper videotaped 3 young ladies going for a swim in SOBE Miami. The girls didnt care about anyone staring at them nor taking their pics. However, this rapper ended up using the video clips in his rap video. Now the girls are suing the rapper for using their image without consent.

Lesson is, any time anyone uses someone or something for their own commercial purposes, they need consent and a contract or permission. If I shoot a wedding at a dining hall, does the owner have a right to use my photos _without_ my consent for advertising his dining hall?