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!
Sue them back for damages and that all their customers cease immidiately from using his work. That should get you a very concerned lawyer on the other side of the table who's probably ready to settle.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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!
http://www.jonengle.com.nyud.net/2009/04/accused/
Coral Cache mirror of the page.
Forget world peace, bring on -1 pointless
so that the damages you get from them for harrassing you about YOUR own creations make them scream hard.
Read radical news here
Judging by your description, I'm guessing that you haven't registered the copyright of your images.
Big mistake. If you don't register a copyright within four months of publication, you cannot get statutory damages. You can only recover actual damages, and the burden will be on you to prove them.
1. Hire a lawyer
2. Register your copyrights (you still have to register before you can file suit)
3. File suit (not just for copyright infringement, you clearly have a claim for defamation as well)
4. Send DMCA notices to the site, the site's ISP, and any of the site's customers that are using the images (and the customer's ISPs).
The "bad" batman is on a crime spree, framing the "good" batman.
Following this plotline, the solution to the OP's problem is quite straightforward:
He needs to enlist help from the Joker, who is now facing some serious competition in the battle for Gotham.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd definitely turn around and sue them for selling your material, harassment, lose of business, etc.
They're trying to destroy him so he has to turn around and crush the scum bags.
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.
Something similar happened to me and I knew the lawyers realized they had no case but they wouldn't let it drop as long as their client was paying. My mother was a judge, so I knew how to aproach this. See the lawyers would never bring this to trial because the judge would repremand them when it was so clear they had no case. But that won't stop them from threatening me. So, first, because I wasn't a lawyer, I sent copious letters to the lawyers and their client repeatedly telling them they in as many ways that they had no case. Each letter sent to the lawyer cost the client money. Each letter sent to the client cost the client money when they turned the letter over to the lawyers as they must. Each reply from the lawyer, and they must reply to each letter, cost the client money. You can't wear lawyers down, but you can wear the client down.
Do not have a lawyer send the letters. It is considered unethical for a lawyer to send a letter to the another lawyer's cleint and it is really the client you want to get to.
what your counsel needs to do
1 begin a counter suit in a GO FOR BLOOD type mode
2 file an injunction with the court preventing them from "discussing details of the case(s) with parties not currently involved with the case" (why are they telling your customers that the status of their purchase may be in question??)
3 file a DCMA notice on the images in question
4 get lots of discovery, lots and lots of discovery
what you need to do
1 stop talking about the case! your last post should be that you did the DCMA notice and got your injunction
2 contact all of your clients and inform them of the situation and offer to send them proof of copyright (higher res version with predated meta stamps or whatever)
3 remember your actions should be clean and above the board (but hire a team that speaks MoFo grade law)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
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.
I had a friend in college who wrote some spreadsheet templates to help manage oil storage tanks. His system kept track of dates of filling, draining, age, litres added, removed, type of oil and so on. It genuinely helped his customers save money as they wouldn't forget about slightly filled tanks which would end up being drained rather than used.
Next thing he knew, another guy was selling the exact same spreadsheet templates but with a couple of the columns swapped around. There really wasn't anything he could do.
Another story was about a guy who wrote an expert system for fixing the motors of train set engines. His system required that you measure the voltages and currents through different parts of the motor. His expert system would then tell you what was wrong with the motor. He was giving this away for free to hobbyists, until someone else figured out that the same expert system would help identify faults with industrial winches and motors, and was charging consultancy fees.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
At least once upon a time stock photography had a decent argument. "I've got negatives, what do you have." Not that film is impossible to fake, it's just that it's a pain to do and very difficult to do well.
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".
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.
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!?
Without actually looking at the evidence, nobody can tell who's right and who's wrong. It's plausible that someone stole this guy's art and uploaded it, it's plausible that the stock company ripped him off deliberately, and it's also plausible that he uploaded the images himself to sell them multiple times.
Let the courts work it out: that's what they are there for.
(As far as copyright is concerned, once you sell the rights to your works, you don't own them anymore.)
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.
Do not have a lawyer send the letters. It is considered unethical for a lawyer to send a letter to the another lawyer's cleint and it is really the client you want to get to. I have no idea where you're pulling that from, but it's gotta be a place where the sun ain't shining too often.
It's true, though it is as much professional courtesy as ethics.
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.
What is more entertaining is when they use a subset of the picture, thinking it's the whole thing. "I have this." Well, I have the original photo, uncropped, plus the other 500+ pictures shot during that shoot. What do you have? :)
My other pictures have always been my proof. Of course, I thumbnail them if I ever want or need to show someone, so they get a little 320x240 picture, and I'm still sitting on the full resolution picture. :)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
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.
I still have my "negatives" in my Digital photography. the photos that leave me are NEVER in the original size and format. You as a customer get a re-sized image that will never be larger than 12 megapixels, has a digital stenography mark in it and All the EXIF data is wiped.
Oh, if you are my customer and asking for 20X30 prints, you gotta buy them from me, or buy the copyright to the RAW image. Otherwise you'll never get more than a 12megapixel image from me.
Honestly, nobody needs bigger than 8Megapixel Images anyways... even full color magazine spreads don't needs more than that.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
how does that even work? You aren't copying someone else's work, you're just recycling content that you have lying around.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
What do I have (and by I, I'm just meaning any photographer in general)? Well, for one I've got an original file of that same image. Perhaps it contains slightly more resolution than the photo you've got (maybe it was downsampled, cropped, or modified in some other way). Perhaps it's in raw format, and that raw file can be converted (using the right settings) to generate the supplied art. The metadata in that file (camera, lens, focal length, focal distance, shutter speed, aperture, iso, capture time, etc) can be used to verify several things, like is the angle of shadows consistant with the time of day, is the depth of field consistant with what you'd get from the indicated lens+settings, etc. Of course, all of that could theoretically be reverse engineered from the photo, but it would take quite a bit of effort and be prone to error.
I then also have a couple other photos of the same scene from slightly different angles. I've got dozens (if not hundreds) of other images from the same location or event. Evidence like that would be MANY orders of magnitude more difficult to fake. If you could fake that, you'd have no need to steal images because you could obviously just fabricate any photo you'd like.
Of course, if that's not the nail in the coffin, then there is also the fact that I (hopefully) registered the photo with the copyright office prior to your first documented usage of the image. And barring that, maybe I've sold the image to some other company before your first documented usage, and they can be called on to testify to that.
In short, even in the film days, an original negative was the least of the evidence a photographer had to prove his ownership, and in the age of digital photography, that same evidence is still every bit as useful.
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
How in the world did we ever form civilization?
With much effort from Sid Meier.
Next you're going to blame him for the large number of copyright-infringing Pirates!, aren't you?
This is slander, and interference with a contractual business relationship. I'd expect them to get slapped down very hard over that one.
It's also a clear violation of the Bar rules of ethics (4.4) in Washington DC, where these lawyers are. They could get admonished, suspended, or even disbarred, and I hope they do. I encourage Jon to file a Bar complaint in addition to litigation.
Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.
There are a lot of things that the folks at Google are capable of doing, and I believe "counting" is one of them. :-D
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?