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.'"
I say he should have waited for them to level all the charges they could against him, before turning the arrow the other way. Or maybe he did. Either way, it'll be really hard for them to back down on the bill after they themselves calculated it. (realizing the biller and the infringer are not the same entity, but they're acting together it appears)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
If you have the finances to go for a lawyer (which you'll need in order to send such a threat in this society) you better take them for all its worth. If they contacted his clients with paper or left them voicemails (and they still have it) then he better be suing for libel and if it was merely phone calls, slander. Either way this is the type of case that you'll win unless you either are up against someone with a big legal department or be trying to lose
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
I don't think he should "get a lawyer"
He should contract a law firm. This is too big to cheap out on, and a diverse set of skills will be needed to maximize the severe punishment that can potentialy be levied against these guys.
You don't want the countersuit to be a single-shot weapon. You want it to be an agonizing series of laser guided charges that simply wont go away no matter how this company tries to weasel out of the situation they have put themselves in.
"His name was James Damore."
if i take a photo, put a CC license on it , but someother party take a screenshot of it and passes it off as owned by them, is there any effective way to prove i took the photo. Yes i could upload to say flickr and that would prove i had the photo at a particular date, but it doesnt really prove i took the photo. What in your opionion is the best way to protect your work. I give all my public photo's a CC license anyway but i would'nt want someone else passing them off as theres.
While you don't have to register copyrights to *have* a copyright, there is a mechanism to register copyrights with the US Copyright Office (well, if you're in another country, this option would probably not be available to you, though I'm not sure). When you register the copyright, you upload a copy of the work that you are registering.
While it is possible for a copyright registration to be overturned by a court, if presented with solid evidence (as in the SCO vs. Novell case where The SCO Group tried to fraudulently register copyrights), my understanding is that the registration puts the proceedings in your favor - if you hold a registration, the court assumes you own it until proven otherwise - you don't have to prove that you own the copyright, the other party has to prove you do NOT own the copyright). The registration also increases the amount of damages you can get in a court action (I think you can get triple damages plus attorney's fees).
It does cost money to register copyrights though - I think it's $35 for online registration, so if an artist has hundreds of small items they wish to copyright, it could get expensive to register them all individually. It might, however, be possible to collectively register them (that is, to have 100 or 200 photos as part of a single copyright registration), but I'm not sure about that.
Outside of copyright registration, I think the way courts decide copyright ownership is based upon someone providing the earliest proof of publication (though I'm not sure - I am not a layer, this isn't legal advice, etc, etc). If you can prove that you had published the image on flickr or some other site at an earlier date than the other party can show proof of their publication, that might do it for you.
I really think, though, that more open source and creative commons software/content producers should register their copyrights. It really does provide you a certain wall of protection against
Other than, I'm not sure what you can do. Registration of your copyrights is probably the best way to give you a strong case though.
While that is true, we have no proof or anything that this guy is telling the truth. Either the stock photo site OR this guy may be in the wrong. It's not like either one of them is going to admit it.
He needs to talk to the Blue Jeans cable guy who previously was a lawyer: the Monster Cable incident
Less is more.
I'm not saying it's right, but it's the way it will probably work out.
Here's how I understand the case. If you step back a little, it will all be clear.
"A", the artist, created the work.
"B", the 3rd party thief, posed as an original artist, and submitted them to "C" for sale.
"C", the stock photo site.
"C" purchased the images from "B", probably under an exclusive license. "C" therefore has legitimate claim to the images. They found out that "A" has the same images on his site, so they filed the complaint. This is perfectly legitimate.
"A" countered the claim saying that he was the original artist.
"C" is still sitting on an invoice, a paid receipt, a signed (electronically, probably) contract saying that they own the photos.
Who do you believe? The person that you've done business with, or a third party?
This unfortunately happens all the time. I was talking to someone who showed me their "original web site, created by a local graphics art firm." I immediately recognized several images as stock photos, and the layout looked like a template. A few days later while doing unrelated work, I found the template on templatemonster.com. Ahhh, it was a template, that the local firm populated with their specific details (we do.. our number is.. email us at..). They confronted the local firm about it. They insisted that it was all original work, even though it was easy to see otherwise. The site owner chose to believe the local firm. Why? Because they had done business with them, and I was just a new guy in the picture.
I could copy down a handful of photos from a stock image place, upload them to somewhere that I had cooperation with, that would put whatever timestamps I wished on, and then say "Oh no, I made those last year". Does that make me right? Nope.
A good thief wouldn't turn around and say "oh ya, I stole it, sorry 'bout that." They would defend their story until it was proven completely wrong. I worked in a jail once (long long ago), and I was told on day 1, "every person in here will tell you how they're innocent." Either the legal system is really screwed, or liars and thieves are frequently one in the same. Heck, even in a traffic stop, people lie.
"Do you know how fast you were going?"
"ya, about 55."
"no you were doing 85. 30mph faster than the rest of the cars on the road."
Is "C" really liable for damages on property that they bought in good faith? No. They can be sued. They will probably agree to remove the copyrighted images and turn over the contact information "B". That won't necessarily get you very far though. What if the only contact information on "B" is a Hotmail address, and a PayPal account, which indicates the owner is in Russia? Good luck suing him.
Good faith goes a long way in court, especially where there is a paper trail.
The same applies to other things.
If you go online and buy say a new computer. It's 20% less than retail, so you assume you're dealing with a legitimate wholesaler. As it turns out, that person worked in a computer store, stole the computer, and sold it online. Do you believe you are criminally or civilly liable? Because it is stolen merchandise, you may have to forfeit the property, but you likely won't be criminally liable because you bought it in good faith. On the other hand, if you knew the person was a thief, you'd run into a long list of legal problems.
Another way to look at it is, go buy something at a pawn shop. How do you know that "B", the person who sold it to the pawn shop, was actually the owner of that property? You don't. You do hold onto the receipt, just in case. It proves your innocence (or at least helps to establish it).
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Besides, they sell OK cables and have good support. What's not to like?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I feel for this guy because I know how it is. I recently had copies of my videos stollen from me and posted on various websites and then I get a notice from YouTube that I am in violation of copyright for my own work that has ME IN IT and they are allowing me to use it but all ad reveinue goes to the other user. My videos were posted years before this company posted my clip. I can't afford a copyright lawyer and youtube refuses to accept the proof that I own my video. I sent a DMCA to them on the other video and got a reply that they have proof of ownership. It's insaine how a big company can screw the little guy and there is nothing we can do about it. Unless you want to shell out the money that honestly I don't have to spend with the economy the way it is now. Sorry for the rant.
Precedent says otherwise. In a very similar case, data files from the open-source JMRI project were stolen by a crook named Matt Katzer who runs a competing company KAM Enterprises or KAMIND. Katzer also listened in to a hobbyist mailing list and patented things that the developers of various similar projects mentioned there. Katzer hired a lawyer to contact the lead JMRI developer's workplace and accuse him of being a patent and copyright thief. The JMRI developer sued for libel and was fined $30,000 in "attorney's fees" under anti-SLAPP laws.
More information about the JMRI case is at the JMRI page. The case has been covered on Slashdot before. Katzer is currently threatening JMRI with $6,000,000 in fines for copyright infringement plus three years of legal fees.
It's time for government-run digital timestamp services that will sign any hashcode-sized number and return it to you via email, and to require that any assertion of copyright over digital material include a timestamped signature for its hash.
Leave it, as a last resort, to the courts to decide whether an allegedly infringing copy is similar enough, but make the copyright precedence if they are so a simple matter of comparing timestamps.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
it sounds like this could be awfully expensive in lawyer fees.
I have it on good authority that in copyright cases in the US one can usually claim back your fees from the infringer and/or false accuser of infringement. If the contributor is correct in his assertion that he has copyright and can prove it then it will probably be the stock photo company that pays those fees.
If justice is served, this artist will never have to work again.
If they can justify $18k for the graphics he was using, then surely they're selling his work to a greater frequency. Not only are they stealing from him directly, but they're accusing him of stealing, as well as slandering him to all of his customers. That is a BIG no-no.
However, I'm not holding my breath that he'll get justice. I've lost a lot of faith in the system as it is increasingly favoring the big guy over the little guy: companies over individuals, corporations over companies, states over citizenry, and the federal government over everything else. IE, it's doing the exact same thing it was originally intended to prevent.