Vendor Stole My Photo

[speedminded]

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.

Bingo. I'm willing to bet you had a hand in the Massive website right? I've always said it's one of the most beautiful aftermarket parts websites on the internet today, honestly nothing else I've found compares.

Actually Massive destroyed my motivation to fabricate and sell a couple brake kits I've designed using Porsche calipers lol! It would take SOOO much effort to compile all the information and knowledge you offer to even be close to your level. I've attempted so many times spending countless hours on trying to build a similar site just to get frustrated when I go back to yours. It's clean & simple with everything being uniform and presented perfectly. Seriously I'm jealous lol!

[StereoInstaller1]

As I know dick about "intellectual property" rights I cannot comment on the whole legal aspect...but it sure seems that Lee and you make a lot of sense in your postings.

Good luck on the battle!

Luke

[s0urce]

Let's face it, this guy is a small fish and you're not going to get any money from him. Total waste of time and effort. He took the picture down, and the story should stop there. Sending him an invoice is comical at best.

[speedminded]

Let's face it, this guy is a small fish and you're not going to get any money from him. Total waste of time and effort. He took the picture down, and the story should stop there. Sending him an invoice is comical at best.

Never owned a business huh?

[Red88]

I agree with Luke, Lee and SM sound like they know what they're talking about. I'm behind you guys. Good luck to you SM in your quest and keep us updated.

[Dave]

Let's face it, this guy is a small fish and you're not going to get any money from him. Total waste of time and effort. He took the picture down, and the story should stop there. Sending him an invoice is comical at best.

Agreed. But hey, what do I know . . . .

[Massive Lee]

Let's face it, this guy is a small fish and you're not going to get any money from him. Total waste of time and effort. He took the picture down, and the story should stop there. Sending him an invoice is comical at best.

So, basically, what you are saying is that a small business can steal from another small business and is not redeemable for doing so, but that only big businesses can be sued for doing the same. A different law depending on how big you are. Brilliant thinking.

[speedminded]

Agreed. But hey, what do I know . . . .

Bad business ethics destroys companies, their profits, and prevents them from getting or affording insurance. What a company doesn't want is their insurance to have to foot a bill.

So, basically, what you are saying is that a small business can steal from another small business and is not redeemable for doing so, but that only big businesses can be sued for doing the same. A different law depending on how big you are. Brilliant thinking.

It's amazing how ignorant people are about copyright laws and ethical business practices. Intellectual property has been protected internationally by laws for over a century and thanks to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 the penalties increased for any infringement on the internet.

[Massive Lee]

So Jason, the company owner never contacted you after you acknowledged them about the little problem? Not even to apologize or graciously offer a few free part in exchange of the inconvenience? I hope he reads this and goes forward.

Lee

[speedminded]

So Jason, the company owner never contacted you after you acknowledged them about the little problem? Not even to apologize or graciously offer a few free part in exchange of the inconvenience? I hope he reads this and goes forward.

Lee

Correct, no contact what so ever. As you can see my address, telephone, and e-mail were included in the letter and invoice. I prefer letters or e-mail since they're actual documents. I have the signature of who received the packet.

The images were removed immediately even though I never asked for it to be. I feel if someone has to pay for something they should at least be allowed to use it but removing it does not extinguish the infringement. Robbing a bank then returning the money the next day does not change or take back what laws were broken.

As you mentioned its not just my photo, I estimate 9 out of 10 of the images on their site do not have licenses or permission for their use.

[Dave]

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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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?