Slashdot Mirror
Designer Accused of Copying His Own Work By Stock Art Website
the_harlequin writes "A successful designer, who has a showcase of his own work available online, has had a stock image site accuse him of copyright infringement over his own illustrations, citing damages of $18,000. The story doesn't end there; the stock photo site hired lawyers, who have contacted the original designer's clients. The lawyers told them the designer is being investigated for copyright infringement and their logos might be copied, thus damaging his reputation. 'My theory is that someone copied my artwork, separated them from any typography and then posted them for sale on the stock site. Someone working for the site either saw my [LogoPond] showcase or was alerted to the similarities. They then prepared the bill and sent it to me. The good thing is that the bill gives me a record of every single image they took from me. That helps me gather dates, sketches, emails, etc. to help me prove my case. The bad thing is that despite my explanations and proof, they will not let this go.'"
They play hardball, hit them with a DMCA letter, pull all of the work down or else, and of course file for the maximum penalty per-hit on the stock images. They don't want to play nice, then don't play nice. "
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
this laws are supposed to help this dude, or people like this dude, if this dude fail to protect itself, then our system has failed, and we don't need any protection. If the force of the strong is the one that prevail, theres no need for laws.
-Woof woof woof!
and begin selling stock images through the site he pwns as a result of the countersuit. A good lawyer should be able to get him some serious money (gratis) if he has adequate proof that the works are his.
This will be your chance to make some money off their commercial use of your art, a good chunk of money at that. All you have to be able to do is prove when you created the works and when they started using them.
Go get legal advice now, make sure they have actual experience in IP law.
Good luck with your new found source of revenue!
so that the damages you get from them for harrassing you about YOUR own creations make them scream hard.
Read radical news here
I'm surprised this isn't more common. Sadly this will probably cost him in legal fees, and both he and the company are victims of a 3rd scam artist.
That they won't back down with presented with proof, ways against them. Do they think he is making it up or are they afraid of losing face?
Think Deeply.
"... awfully expensive in lawyer fees." Apparently there are almost no lawyers in the U.S. who are true partners of their clients. Their clients are just a way to make as much money as possible. Getting involved with a lawyer is often just making something else bad happen to you. Most lawyers have no caring whatsoever if they handle the case poorly; there just is no quality control. Lawyers commonly lie about how much work they did.
It wasn't Slashdotted. It was already hit by several other big sites. Slashdot's a day behind on knocking his site down. :)
There's a link for the cache in the comments here. A blog posting, and lots of comments most of which saying the same thing. Get a good lawyer.
They probably bought his images from a 3rd party, so they believe they own them. They'll hold onto that belief until it's gone through court. It'll probably turn out that it's almost impossible to track down the 3rd party, so all he'll eventually get is for the stock photo site to take down his work.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I'm not one to normally swear on slashdot, hence posting as AC, but it has to be said that stockart.com are a bunch of fucking cunts.
I hope they get their collective asses kicked bigtime over this debacle.
I already have enough problems with images I post publicy
Why should they only remove them?
Can I claim I believed everything I downloaded to be legal downloads since it's a crime to spread copyrighted work so it must have been ...
And then get away with it except for removal of my copies?
Sounds like an acceptable penalty but I doubt the copyright holders would agree in most cases.
Anyway, he'd already told them how it was and they kept pushing it.
IANAL but AFAICT It doesn't really work that way. First you go after the guy who actually committed the violations. THEN you go after the people who paid him
No. Copyright is a strict liability issue, even if the stock photo agency did not know they are still liable but with lower damages. From 17504(c)(2): "In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."
I don't see why I was modded troll. Sounds to me like this company is trying to get almost 20k$ and is going after his credibility and business relations which will surely cost him much more in the long run. This is already far past what can be resolved quietly, this will have to end up in court or he can kiss his career goodbye. And once you're already there, I see no reason to hold back. Even if you can't prove all that it'll get them scrambling to find out if it's true or not - maybe their internal will figure out this is something they'd better settle.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
That's a great idea! I'm glad that I invested into the Nikon D1*V* which takes vector photos.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Problem: The clients don't want anything to do with the guy and are unlikely to be cooperative when proving libel. It'll be his word against the defence, unless he has a few friends among his clients.
I found this out first hand when I took a former employer to court and tried to get a other former employees to back me up. Everyone disappeared under a rock, as no one wanted to get involved with courts, lawyers or risk getting dragged into someone else's fight. It's less trouble for them to just hold their tongues. The only people who would back me up were personal friends. (Fortunately I won the case without these people's help: the employer destroyed his credibility with the judge by falsifying records.)
The law may be on this guy's side, but I don't envy him one bit. He's in for a lonely fight.
No, "C" thinks it has legitimate claim to the images. Not the same thing.
Whether or not "C" was tricked by "B", they still have no claim against "A" (the actual author). And by going after "A"s clients, they threw away any chance to settle their mistake amicably, so now "A" is perfectly justified in releasing the lawyers on "C".
Actually, wouldn't your pawn shop example count as a case of "Receiving Stolen Property"? Don't think a receipt and claims of "good faith" will help that much there.
The law protects the ones that has the financial means to afford its protection. Those others that lack the financial means are just... road kills.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
That still applies in photography with RAWs. They have the serial number of the camera that took them embedded in the data, and they can't be edited, only converted and saved in a different format and then edited. The original RAW is just a dump of the sensor's state immediately after the shutter closes. They're also huge proprietary formats, and I don't think any photographer uploads them to stock sites.
On top of that, they're held as a much higher form of evidence than say a JPEG in court as they are extremely difficult to tamper with. Since a RAW image is not even an image, but just a memory dump of a CMOS or CCD, you'd have to know the specifics of that exact chip in order to edit it, and the only people who know that usually are the manufacturers of said chip.
So, "I've got the RAWs, what do you have, JPEGs?"
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
Claiming ownership is beyond mere infringement.
Unless the camera is specifically made for it (e.g. cameras which digitally sign the RAW), faking a RAW isn't as hard as you make it out to be. Converting a JPEG back to a RAW and putting in a phony serial number is certainly within the realm of possibility for a dedicated fraudster. And not having the RAW doesn't mean you weren't the photographer either, obviously.
Get a manilla envelope, put the pictures in them, go to the post office and mail them to yourself.
I doubt this will work. USPS is happy to mail an open envelope, and I receive those now and then (typically mass mailings.) Alternatively, you can seal the envelope with a very light glue - for example a rubber goo that printers use to attach a subscription sheet to the front page of some trade publication. These will hold fine while the envelope is being mailed, but once in your hands the goo can be removed without a trace, and now you have a dated envelope that is empty and open. Put anything in it at any later date, seal, and claim it as proof!
IMO, a better way to date-stamp a hardcopy is by going to your nearest UPS Store and paying for notary services. Each page of your document will be stamped and signed, and the fact will be recorded into Notary's book. They are kind of careful about those books, so it's very unlikely that anyone can contest a notary's stamp and signature. Another advantage is that the materials never leave your hands, and have no chance of being lost or misdelivered.
Well, since I've seen software that can read and manipulate RAW files from various cameras, as a developer that lets me know that you can certainly create RAW files that look like they came from the camera. If you have the math to go one way, you have the math to go the other way. The app knows the entire process of reading and making an image out of a RAW, it can certainly produce a RAW that will give you the same image. It might not be the same RAW as the original, but that really doesn't matter since either side could have the fake and you have no clue which one.
If the camera digitally signed the RAW with something like an RSA or DSA sig then you would think you've made it secure, but you've only made it a little harder. All you need to sign the document is the private key used to sign it. The camera HAS to have that key or it can't sign it itself. Its just a matter of getting it out of the camera so you can use it. This is not always so easy, as the XBox360 hacking guys will tell you. But as anyone who knows anything about encryption will tell you that given the time and willpower, someone will break it, its just a matter of when and how. Add to it that all the cameras of a given model, probably a given manufacture are going to share the same key and it means its just a matter of someone breaking it via brute force.
My point to all this is simply that the idea that RAWs can't be faked is silly at best.
I think that any court which saw one guy with one image of a scene, and the other guy with 7 images from slightly different moments within the same scene is probably going to go with the guy who has the 7, since faking those would be a lot more difficult than faking a RAW.
Or he could just produce a higher resolution or uncropped version of the one photo and I'm likely to believe him over the guy who can't produce it. Doesn't mean the uncropped version was actually taken by him, but he has better proof than 'I bought it from a russian via hotmail' me thinks. Of course, he could have just hax0red the russians PC and stolen all the images from him in the first place, in order to pull this off! Okay okay, taking my tin foil hat of now.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager