Vendor Stole My Photo

[s0urce]

^that

[Aptyp]

Just admit that at this point, you're just being a douche. Do the lawyer thing, go to court, prove me wrong.

I don't care, who agrees with you in this thread, but DTMFW owes you absolutely nothing, and I'm sure they've talked to their attorney the minute they got your letter and removed your picture off their site. Their lack of contact with you is the smartest thing they can do, until they get served with any legal papers. Their lack of participation in this thread is also a good sign, as I guarantee you, they've seen it, since it's been at the top of New Threads for a few days.

DTMFW should not have used random pics found online, and should use only images representing their actual product, but that's a whole other issue. As far as you're concerned, you're just an asshole who wouldn't let it go.

[s0urce]

Never owned a business huh?

I do own my own business, and I know there comes a time when the cost of legal council exceeds the cost of frying some small fish. I choose my legal battles wisely, and from what I've gathered I highly doubt this guy is really profiting from your silly photo.

[speedminded]

r3vlaw 101

lol! If only I could give reps!

[Under_Pressure]

r3vlaw 101

[triggrhaapi]

And the first step to legal action in BOTH cases is a cease and desist order.

[speedminded]

Did you ever get a chance to read the legal section on the Pirate Bay before they got completely taken out?

They were sent cease and desist orders long before they got sued. Or hell, go read a book on copyright law.

Trademark infringement is NOT copyright infringement. There is the United States Patent and Trademark Office which is part of the Department of Commerce: www.uspto.gov/

Then there is the United States Copyright Office, which is part of the Library of Congress. : http://www.copyright.gov/

They are two completely different government agencies formed for different purposes with completely different laws governing them.

[triggrhaapi]

BMW's name is a TRADEMARK. That is completely different than intellectual property.

Did you ever get a chance to read the legal section on the Pirate Bay before they got completely taken out?

They were sent cease and desist orders long before they got sued. Or hell, go read a book on copyright law.

Edit: Beyond that, what you would be doing is suing in small claims court. Even if you win, even if you get awarded what you want, there is almost NO enforcement of the judgment and you're still out all of the money you think you deserve, plus the legal costs. Cut your losses and try to protect your intellectual property better in the future.

[speedminded]

It's not logic, it's how shit works. I was once administrator of a website that used BMW's name in it's url. We were notified that we needed to cease and desist use of their name or we would face further legal action. We ceased and desisted, and that was the end of it.

It's that way with everything.

BMW's name is a TRADEMARK. That is completely different than intellectual property copyrights.

[triggrhaapi]

It's not logic, it's how shit works. I was once administrator of a website that used BMW's name in it's url. We were notified that we needed to cease and desist use of their name or we would face further legal action. We ceased and desisted, and that was the end of it.

It's that way with everything.

[speedminded]

There is none technically but realistically there is. Step back from the "principle of the thing" and think rationally. There aren't infinite resources to pursue every violation of the law with equal effort. Ideally, we would prosecute the garage sale thief with the same effort as Jeffrey Skilling, or someone who downloads your MP3 as Napster but we can't. If you have the resources to do that on your own, then great. Although being able to afford a lawyer doesn't guarantee that a judge will be willing to waste the court's resources over the case. I pretty much guarantee that the owner of that website, or some guy who downloads one of your MP3s doesn't have the resources to pay for the full damages (your legal costs, the court), so even if you win the case, no one will get paid so you'll be sent home.

You need to pick your battles and sometimes cut your losses.

1) Not having money does not absolve someone
2) Business have insurance for a reason.

Right, but with no establishment of cost or notification of ownership prior to the charge, it's not likely that any judge is going to side with you.

If it were possible to just invent a cost and charge it without prior notification, then there would be no such thing as a cease and desist order. There are established legal guidelines in terms of enforcement of copyright law and step one is the cease and desist order.

They ceased and desisted after being notified that you owned the intellectual property. You have no right to anything from them. End of story. If you don't believe me, feel free to try to sue them and then you can hear it from a judge.

So under this logic any company can use any image they choose for any reason they want, whether it's advertising or commercially or whatever until they are told they can't? If they don't comply, then and only then are they guilty of copyright infringement?

Basically I can take any photographers images and print them and sell them on eBay and in stores with no threat of consequences until I'm told not to do that? I can use any image I want in any advertisement, be it a magazine or television, without infringing on anyones rights unless the author comes forward and informs me not to? And even then it doesn't matter? SO every image on earth is fair use until someone says it's not?

[triggrhaapi]

Right, but with no establishment of cost or notification of ownership prior to the charge, it's not likely that any judge is going to side with you.

If it were possible to just invent a cost and charge it without prior notification, then there would be no such thing as a cease and desist order. There are established legal guidelines in terms of enforcement of copyright law and step one is the cease and desist order.

They ceased and desisted after being notified that you owned the intellectual property. You have no right to anything from them. End of story. If you don't believe me, feel free to try to sue them and then you can hear it from a judge.

[BigD]

There is literally no difference between me writing a piece of music and Lars Ulrich writing a piece of music as far as the law is concerned, just the scale on which we can afford to protect our rights as artists.

There is none technically but realistically there is. Step back from the "principle of the thing" and think rationally. There aren't infinite resources to pursue every violation of the law with equal effort. Ideally, we would prosecute the garage sale thief with the same effort as Jeffrey Skilling, or someone who downloads your MP3 as Napster but we can't. If you have the resources to do that on your own, then great. Although being able to afford a lawyer doesn't guarantee that a judge will be willing to waste the court's resources over the case. I pretty much guarantee that the owner of that website, or some guy who downloads one of your MP3s doesn't have the resources to pay for the full damages (your legal costs, the court), so even if you win the case, no one will get paid so you'll be sent home.

You need to pick your battles and sometimes cut your losses.

[speedminded]

You don't have a leg to stand on legally. You already achieved cessation of the violation. You don't have a right to compensation for it's short term use, because no agreement for that payment was established. You notified them of your ownership of the intellectual property and offered them use for payment. They opted to not use the intellectual property and ceased it's use.

That is the end of it, legally.

Who are you? The compensation requested was for the use of the image up to the day of my invoice. Removing the image does not in any way extinguish what laws were broken during the month or so they were up. Just like robbing a bank then returning the money the following day does not remove the charges. The bank was still robbed just as my photo was still stolen.

I have 100% rights to statutory compensation and as soon as the US Copyright office completes my registration punitive damages will be added as well.

[triggrhaapi]

You don't have a leg to stand on legally. You already achieved cessation of the violation. You don't have a right to compensation for it's short term use, because no agreement for that payment was established. You notified them of your ownership of the intellectual property and offered them use for payment. They opted to not use the intellectual property and ceased it's use.

That is the end of it, legally.