Vendor Stole My Photo

[Rigmaster]

Deal.

You're completely correct. Any claim involving copyright issues goes straight to Federal Court. There's no small claims court for federal crimes.

Seeking a criminal charge? Anything involving copyright infringement is a Federal criminal charge. Removing a watermark only adds on an additional charge.

Then why are you on the interwebz when you should be preparing legal papers?


I'm serious. I understand that you're pissed off, but you've got to have a sliver of common sense here- you're not going to get anything out of those dickwads, you don't have much of a claim. The only people who have anything to gain by you filing a lawsuit against them is the lawyers on both sides- they get paid regardless.

But I REALLY REALLY hope you do follow through with something- and you MUST post updates if you do.

[speedminded]

This thread is full of idiots.

Go talk to a real IP lawyer and let me know if he is willing to take this case.

Once it is filed, please let us know the District and Docket number.

And to the yokel that mentioned Small Claims Court?

This is getting pretty funny.

EDIT: And let me know how far you get with seeking a criminal charge ^^^

:giggle:

Deal.

You're completely correct. Any claim involving copyright issues goes straight to Federal Court. There's no small claims court for federal crimes.

Seeking a criminal charge? Anything involving copyright infringement is a Federal criminal charge. Removing a watermark only adds on an additional charge.

[DatUtahGuy]

All jokes aside, I want it to be clear this isn't the American lottery for me. If I had my way there would be no need for locks on doors or ignition keys. I'm simply protecting what is mine and looking out for fellow photographers.

All jokes aside, I want my wheels.

jk, but just so we are clear, I agree with you.

[Dave]

This thread is full of idiots.

Go talk to a real IP lawyer and let me know if he is willing to take this case.

Once it is filed, please let us know the District and Docket number.

And to the yokel that mentioned Small Claims Court?

This is getting pretty funny.

EDIT: And let me know how far you get with seeking a criminal charge ^^^

:giggle:

[speedminded]

then it should be your problem for making it public without a huge water mark all the way across it, besides its not like your making money off of it, and they're stealing your profits. you act as if they came into your house, dickslapped you in the face, then took your shit, and only then have the balls to post it up on their site. BFD.

I don't even know why I'm bothering to reply to someone that has yet to evolve.

Since 1988 no watermark or copyright is required, period. By adding a watermark though, no matter the size, clearly discloses that an image is copyrighted and will refute the “I didn’t know it was copyrighted” or “the identity of the artist was not clearly defined” defense. It will however cost the infringer up to an additional $2,500 in fines if it is removed:

Copyright Law - Chapter 5
Copyright Infringement and Remedies

§ 506. Criminal offenses
(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.

I've crewed for race teams and been hired by countless other race teams to take photographs for them. You're right, I'm NOT making any money off it because they STOLE the image to use on their COMMERCIAL website for profit. I don't care if they don't sell a single "e36 widebody GTR kit" in the next 100 years, that's not my problem. They unlawfully used a copyrighted image for their benefit, as well as most of the other images on their website.

[xwill112x]

then it should be your problem for making it public without a huge water mark all the way across it, besides its not like your making money off of it, and they're stealing your profits. you act as if they came into your house, dickslapped you in the face, then took your shit, and only then have the balls to post it up on their site. BFD.

[speedminded]

BTW, did you post the photo anywhere?

Yes, a few BMW forums last year shortly after the race.

[StereoInstaller1]

BTW, did you post the photo anywhere?

[speedminded]

speed dude, when you do get your money and/or parts, would you be so gracious as to ask for a set of esm wheels as a gratuitous act, I think they are the same company as DTM fiber werks so it should be all right.

Some 16x8 all around would do just fine, polished lip with a bronze center.

Thanks!!!

All jokes aside, I want it to be clear this isn't the American lottery for me. If I had my way there would be no need for locks on doors or ignition keys. I'm simply protecting what is mine and looking out for fellow photographers.

[TexasTerp]

Our court systems would have to be 10X the size they are now if every penty ante gripe wound up in a lawsuit.

DTMFiberwekz is not exactly BMW Gmbh or DuPont. They probably pay some young "web guy" to do their site, and not some huge firm. Is there some kind of technical violation in what happened - maybe.

But for fuck's sake, by your logic, this site should have been squashed by BMW back when they were using a Roundel logo early on. And most enthusiast sites would probably face similar fates unless they paid fees . . .

There are bigger fish to fry.

Two major problems with your argument: 1) Ever heard of small claims court? These type of lawsuits are exactly what they are designed for. 2) Companies like BMW depend on enthusiast sites to pump the brand, and for the record most parts resellers actually do get permission or at least acknowledge the BMW trademarks. A company like BMW would waste money going after people like DTM because they are so large. But when it comes to a small business every penny matters.

[DatUtahGuy]

speed dude, when you do get your money and/or parts, would you be so gracious as to ask for a set of esm wheels as a gratuitous act, I think they are the same company as DTM fiber werks so it should be all right.

Some 16x8 all around would do just fine, polished lip with a bronze center.

Thanks!!!

[Scotaku]

DTMFiberwekz is not exactly BMW Gmbh or DuPont. They probably pay some young "web guy" to do their site, and not some huge firm. Is there some kind of technical violation in what happened - maybe.

Then they should probably pay speedminded for the use of his copyrighted image. There is no technicality here. The image was clearly copied, altered specifically to remove the copyright watermark, and then posted without license.

Duh much?

[speedminded]

I am not going to waste my time going into detail, but let me just say that any Court that you take this to is going to be awfully pissed to see it. Talk about a waste of judicial resources should you file an action over this.

Courts do not want to be bothered with minutiae. Cases over "principle" are a tax on the system.

Thus far you have no proof that there was any ill intent - you have not established where Ary got the photo, or had any idea it was claimed as copyrighted. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that amount of profits you might show he made from using your photo (if you can even establish that) are probably not much more than the filing fees for your complaint.

You got the result - he took down the photo you claim as yours and you have publicly embarrassed him over it.

Let it go.

It doesn't matter where the photograph was obtained from. Any image a company uses must include permission or licensing from it's source, it's 100% black and white with zero gray area in-between.

If courts don't want to be bothered with this "minutiae" then why does the U.S. Copyright Office exist explicitly protecting my rights?

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504

It's not like I'm requesting a "failure to use turn signal" ticket to be tried at supreme court. That would be a waste of tax payers money.

EVERY SINGLE photograph is copyright material the MOMENT it is taken: no ifs, ands, or buts.

[Dave]

Our court systems would have to be 10X the size they are now if every penty ante gripe wound up in a lawsuit.

DTMFiberwekz is not exactly BMW Gmbh or DuPont. They probably pay some young "web guy" to do their site, and not some huge firm. Is there some kind of technical violation in what happened - maybe.

But for fuck's sake, by your logic, this site should have been squashed by BMW back when they were using a Roundel logo early on. And most enthusiast sites would probably face similar fates unless they paid fees . . .

There are bigger fish to fry.

[Massive Lee]

Hi Dave

Pictures don't fall off the sky for you to use to your own convenience and profit. Every single web designer knows it. It's the law that when using a picture, there are agreement and fees unless otherwise stated. You just can't plea that you didn't know the law. Courts are not just for serial killers, rapists and drunk drivers. Every single aspect of the law has to be respected and be enforced. Period.

And BTW, the website's owner never contacted the photographer after the facts. Either to apologize or reach an agreement off court. That says a lot about the type of business dealing. So, suing remains the last mean to a problem when you tried emails and phone replies.

Jason has all the proofs for him. If the webmaster thought he had the right to use the picture, he simply wouldn't have removed it...