Vendor Stole My Photo

[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!!!

[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.

[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.

[StereoInstaller1]

BTW, did you post the photo anywhere?

[speedminded]

BTW, did you post the photo anywhere?

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

[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]

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.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

I answered that in the original post. I want the owners of the other images found.

I'm not pissed lol! I stated in the letter I was pleased they like my photo enough to use it, I just want to be reimbursed for my time on it.

[Rigmaster]

A notary public at the UPS Store screen captured, printed, and notarized the said copyright infringement as evidence; including the images, the source, and the file directory that contained the image. I included copies of this in the packet I mailed them.

Serious question about this (since you seem to want to continue this thread)- but what good do you expect this to do for you? A notary can't "notarize said copyright infringement as evidence" AFAIK, their main function in most of the US is to "notarize" a person's signature- all that does is affirm that the signature on a document was indeed made by the person named on the document.



Like I said, I'm VERY interested to see how this turns out for you.

[speedminded]

Serious question about this (since you seem to want to continue this thread)- but what good do you expect this to do for you? A notary can't "notarize said copyright infringement as evidence" AFAIK, their main function in most of the US is to "notarize" a person's signature- all that does is affirm that the signature on a document was indeed made by the person named on the document.



Like I said, I'm VERY interested to see how this turns out for you.

It's a legal time and date stamp. Also proves I did not simply create a screen capture then photoshop my own pictures on there because I knew they would change the pics upon receiving the letter.

My only other choice would be mail them to myself and not open it. The USPS stamp works as a legal date stamp BUT that still doesn't prove that is indeed what was on the website at that time.

A notary public is a legal witness. He printed it, stamped it, signed it, and wrote a simple statement saying printed on "such and such" date under his signature. That proves without a doubt what is on the paper is exactly what was on the website at that moment.

[machined]

I'm not sure if it was mentioned already; but, how did you discover that the photo was being used?