Vendor Stole My Photo

[noE30]

Speedminded. I am 100% with you. Good luck in your quest.

x2

I'm starting to get into photography (studying it in college) and I hate to see things like this, hopefully you get it all resolved.

[Fidhle007]

don't know about how much photoshop is enough photoshop, but

was deemed original from Associated Press image.


To bad that guy eventually went crazy and went to court while burning original works and had his attorney walk out on him.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here but keep your hope and change out of this thread. God damn hippies...

I don't think Aptyp's point is as asinine as some of you make it out to be. I haven't seen him say that what the website did was OK and the OP should shut up about it. All he seems to me to be saying is that this could have been dealt with much more quietly and reasonably. I don't see anything wrong with that. You don't have to automatically beat your chest about it (especially, as Aptyp points out, if you are just as guilty of the same thing or worse). Just because you have the right to do something, it doesn't mean that you must.

As far as compensation, you'll first have to prove that it's your photo. I've been to several races with friends or near other photographers and we have almost identical photographs. You'll also have to prove that they stole it from your website, and it wasn't stolen by someone else, then cropped, and this is the version they found (I've known a few people ignorantly in possession of stolen property - they just have it confiscated). And THEN you'll have to hope that they actually pay up and don't simply shut down the business and stiff you.

Alternatively - you've told them they're in violation, they took the pic down, the end. You're not metallica and they're not napster, back down, before you waste more of your time and money.

You again, have obviously never created something so I'll refer again to the stolen car analogy. I steal your car and crash it and by your logic you should just call me up and see if I'll apologize rather then getting the cops and insurance companies involved...?

im with aptyp, you should have gave them a call and discussed matters first, who knows you may have gotten things worked out. there was no reason to "attack" like you have, but then again, they should have asked you for permission. But clearly now, you certainly now have pissed them off and the e30 community is tight. now there's always going to be a smudge there.
good job bringing bullshit into the e30 scene OP.

He mailed them an invoice for use of his picture, how is that an "attack?" Seriously, just because one person felt they should be rightfully compensated for a stolen photo you think the whole E30 community is going to come crashing down? It's one crappy parts vendor! Depo doesn't make headlights for the E30 anymore and I'm still an enthusiast...

[speedminded]

don't know about how much photoshop is enough photoshop, but

was deemed original from Associated Press image.


To bad that guy eventually went crazy and went to court while burning original works and had his attorney walk out on him.

I'm very familiar with that case and I knew that's exactly where you were going lol! The same goes for the Marlboro man "Cowboy" re-photograph Richard Prince did then it sold at a NYC Auction for $1.6 Million then sold again for $3.4. He took a picture of an advertisement photograph, blew it up, and displayed it in museums and galleries. He's done several and until Phillip-Morris pursues him it's unlikely anything can be done. No attorney is going to represent them in the case for a max $100,000 fine anyways plus it's somewhat questionable who owns the rights to those photos. I know who owns the rights to MY photo because I have never released the rights to it.

Richard Prince ended up settling out of a court when a photographer pursued him over a photograph of Brooke Shields he "re-photographed", his response to it was, "I never associated an advertisement as having an author."

I don't think Aptyp's point is as asinine as some of you make it out to be. I haven't seen him say that what the website did was OK and the OP should shut up about it. All he seems to me to be saying is that this could have been dealt with much more quietly and reasonably. I don't see anything wrong with that. You don't have to automatically beat your chest about it (especially, as Aptyp points out, if you are just as guilty of the same thing or worse). Just because you have the right to do something, it doesn't mean that you must.

As far as compensation, you'll first have to prove that it's your photo. I've been to several races with friends or near other photographers and we have almost identical photographs. You'll also have to prove that they stole it from your website, and it wasn't stolen by someone else, then cropped, and this is the version they found (I've known a few people ignorantly in possession of stolen property - they just have it confiscated). And THEN you'll have to hope that they actually pay up and don't simply shut down the business and stiff you.

Alternatively - you've told them they're in violation, they took the pic down, the end. You're not metallica and they're not napster, back down, before you waste more of your time and money.

It was dealt with quietly and reasonably...for over 30 days. They had their chance when I professionally put the ball in their court.

Yes, another photographer was sitting on my lap using the exact same lens at the same focal length with a 1.6x crop camera body set on the exact same shutter speed then they post processed and edited the image by adjusting the curve, levels, and saturation just like I did with mine. Seriously? :facepalm: I could give you the same camera and lens and you would never in 10,000 shots get the same shot as me because the camera settings and post processing would be completely different.

It doesn't matter if you find a photo on the internet, it doesn't matter if the pic doesn't have a name on it or a copyright. You still must have permission from the photographer or rights holder to use it. It wouldn't even matter If I had sold the image to the raceteam, until I give up the full rights of the image they cannot be used in any other way without my permission, especially commercially.

Read the letter again. My invoice is for the use of the photo up to the date it was mailed. It does not matter if it was taken down because they are still liable for it's use. I'm protected under the same laws Metallica is so what is the difference? lol!

law maybe on speedminded's side but i still think it could have been handled differently. besides, did the owners of those cars in the pic provide written permission for the picture to be taken and displayed?

lol what? Owners permission? Please explain how it should have been handled differently, lets go through the scenario step by step...

[speedminded]

im with aptyp, you should have gave them a call and discussed matters first, who knows you may have gotten things worked out. there was no reason to "attack" like you have, but then again, they should have asked you for permission. But clearly now, you certainly now have pissed them off and the e30 community is tight. now there's always going to be a smudge there.
good job bringing bullshit into the e30 scene OP.

lololol! Yes yay me for bringing the only BS to ever hit the e30 scene! Quite impressive if I say so myself...it's so bad I'm destroying cars and breaking up relationships and ruining marriages by posting up a forums sponsors illegal use of my copyrighted property. Hahaha!

[Farbin Kaiber]

At least they are not giving away free terry cloth bathrobes.

[bejbis]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here but keep your hope and change out of this thread. God damn hippies...

This coming from a glorified street performer.

[Fidhle007]

This coming from a glorified street performer.

Who wholeheartedly loves his 2nd Amendment rights...:hitler:

[Rigmaster]

I KNEW it......

the internet really IS SrS bZnS

[TexasTerp]

I don't think Aptyp's point is as asinine as some of you make it out to be. I haven't seen him say that what the website did was OK and the OP should shut up about it. All he seems to me to be saying is that this could have been dealt with much more quietly and reasonably. I don't see anything wrong with that. You don't have to automatically beat your chest about it (especially, as Aptyp points out, if you are just as guilty of the same thing or worse). Just because you have the right to do something, it doesn't mean that you must.

As far as compensation, you'll first have to prove that it's your photo. I've been to several races with friends or near other photographers and we have almost identical photographs. You'll also have to prove that they stole it from your website, and it wasn't stolen by someone else, then cropped, and this is the version they found (I've known a few people ignorantly in possession of stolen property - they just have it confiscated). And THEN you'll have to hope that they actually pay up and don't simply shut down the business and stiff you.

Alternatively - you've told them they're in violation, they took the pic down, the end. You're not metallica and they're not napster, back down, before you waste more of your time and money.

Being a professional musician, a freelance web designer and someone who has gone through lawsuits specifically dealing with copyright infringement and Intellectual Property, I find that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to ethics in these matters. Neither does Aptyp. SpeedMinded did everything exactly how it should be done. He notified the company of their fault, sent them an invoice to cover the illegal usage and notified an attorney after being rebuked. The fact that DTMFW and Ari removed the photo is irrelevant, they went out of their way to illegally use a photograph. The original has his watermark and copyright year on it, they are in violation of the law, end of story. Just because they removed the photo doesn't mean they no longer owe him for it's use.

I had a company steal my design for a website and was reselling it as a template. I followed the exact same steps as Speedminded, went to court over compensation and won based on my ability to prove the code and the design was mine. The fact is as a professional (hobbyist or not) you have to protect everything you create, and if someone comes along and steals it then you do everything necessary to regain it. Our time is not free, no matter what they do or how they see fit to correct it, I get paid for my work regardless. I know plenty of photographers, a few very famous guys and not one of them would EVER do what you suggest, it's bad business.

law maybe on speedminded's side but i still think it could have been handled differently. besides, did the owners of those cars in the pic provide written permission for the picture to be taken and displayed?

photographers are granted permission to be on the grounds by the track owners for the purpose of capturing photographs, whether they pay to be there or not. Unless a driver specifically signs a contract with the Track Administration barring anyone from using photographs of their car, they have absolutely no rights or claims to the images taken of them. Car Owners pay to use the track, they have no say whatsoever in how the tracks operates with advertisers or anyone else who the track authorizes to be there for any purpose. Your argument is moot.

This coming from a glorified street performer.

Glad to know that being a professional musician qualifies me as a "glorified street performer" too! Your posts have proven you to be one of the most ignorant people I've dealt with on this forum so far, you have absolutely no concept of copyright and IP law nor what it takes to run a business as a freelancer.

[Wh33lhop]

photographers are granted permission to be on the grounds by the track owners for the purpose of capturing photographs, whether they pay to be there or not. Unless a driver specifically signs a contract with the Track Administration barring anyone from using photographs of their car, they have absolutely no rights or claims to the images taken of them. Car Owners pay to use the track, they have no say whatsoever in how the tracks operates with advertisers or anyone else who the track authorizes to be there for any purpose. Your argument is moot.

This is a good point; plenty of photographers hang around tracks and sell the drivers shots of themselves in action. This shit isn't easy--it's not like the only time that went into that picture was the time it took to press the damn shutter button.

[DatUtahGuy]

This shit reminds me of a similar experience that my friend went through. He took a picture of a Nissan baja 500 truck in mid-jump and posted it around on some forums for people to see and comment.

Then a while later, he went to a local Nissan stealership and lo and behold, they were selling calendars with his pic in it. I don't remember what he did but it involved legal action against Nissan NA.

[accident]

I hope you win your suit, this is obvious infringement and I definitely feel you handled this in the most appropriate manner.

And fuck everybody saying you're a douche.

[Eric]

I don't think the maroon E30 has a single eurostop part on it either.

[Massive Lee]

I worked in advertizing and still consult. Every single case involving a picture that is used without the expressed (not assumed) consent of the photographer or a right holder is always lost by the agency/studio that wrongfully used the picture. Basically, every picture must have some sort of release form "attached" to it. Not only the photographer gets his usually fee paid, but it also comes with a huge punitive fine. Very often, if a Guild of Photographers exists in your state, it will give you hand to help you enforce your right.

Last time I checked the "DTMfiberthing" website, I think that 95% of the pictures were "borrowed" and not even of the actual product. Basically, if a photorapher wants to make a case easy, he only has to make screen dumps of all the pages, research the originals, and demonstrate that his case is not an isolated case and that the website extensively uses stolen pictures. BTW what remains to decide is who is at fault. The parts manufacturer or its website design firm? Pretty sure that the manufacturer will shovel the responsibility on the design firm.

I am also pretty sure that the OP would have agreed initially, before the facts, to rent his picture for a low fee or in exchange of free advertizing if he had known in advance. But hey, the website designers decided otherwise.

[speedminded]

I don't think the maroon E30 has a single eurostop part on it either.

The e46 was shot on the Nürburgring with an Olympus E-1. The e30 appears to be the same style/photographer but it doesn't have any EXIF data to know for sure. I see no Eurostop/DTMFW parts either. I thought I knew the photographer that took them, as he did too, until he discovered the EXIF data on the e46 to be a different from his camera. I've recognized the photographers of at least 3 photos stolen on various websites the past year...even just from small crops of the original.

The silver 2002 was taken from photobucket, the file name wasn't changed and it was uploaded 2 months before the new DTMfiberwerkz website. Not to mention there are two more photos of that car that aren't on DTMFW. http://www.flickr.com/photos/32399794@N02/3837523986/

The E36 GTR Race Style Widebody Kit on DTMFW is ironically the same photos found on Octane Motorsports.

The list goes on and on: the entire website, other than a couple of their own personal cars, was made from stolen photos.