Slashdot Mirror
Photographer Threatened With Legal Action After Asserting His Copyright
New submitter JamieKitson writes "Photographer Jay Lee got more than he bargained for after sending some DMCA takedown notifications out to hosts of sites using one of his pictures. One Candice Shwagger accused him of everything from conspiracy over local sheriff elections to child abuse. Since Candice is now threatening legal action, Jay has said he'll take down the post, so here's a snap shot. After reading the story, I checked for use of my own pictures and found one of them being used on a review site without even a credit."
"Go ahead and sue me." The infringing person would likely never follow through, or if he did, lose the case and a lot of money. ----- Just like that Oregon Newspaper editor who tried to steal an article from an online reporter. He too threatened to sue but backed down (and paid $500 to the reporter), because he knew he was guilty-guilty-guilty. Downloading something for personal enjoyment is one thing; earning wealth off the back of a worker's labor w/o paying them is entirely different (and evil).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I found TFA very interesting. Sounds like the lady is off her rocker. However - the bottom line is that if you don't want someone to "take" your stuff, don't post it on-line. Sort of like, "don't leave your wallet on your dashboard with the windows down". Should you be able to? Sure. Will you be able to, without someone taking it? No. Should you be surprised when you come back and your wallet is gone? No. Should you be surprised when you post stuff on-line and someone uses it for their own purposes? No. Should you be able to address the issue? Sure. Can you save yourself a lot of headache by not posting your stuff on-line in the first place? You betcha.
Practical advice for the guy in TFA? If you're going to post your photos on-line, put a great big watermark on it that says something to the effect of, "If you want to use this photo, YOU NEED TO PAY ME! Email whatever@ whatever.com for details!"
Being a semi-pro photographer myself (and facing the same problem), I find the woman in the original article ludicrous.
There's a lot of problems with trying to share your photos with the world (under copyright) and people using them w/o permission. I know my own photos are being used (and quite often abused) all over the place.
The photos aren't very pleasing to look at if they have watermarks all over them obscuring detail:(
Not that I don't freely allow many non-profits (including zoos) to use my photos all over the world and that I have certainly been paid for legal use of some few.
..is a crazy system that allows a site to be taken down with no prior warning, negotiation or appeal beforehand, surely.
Smivs on the intertubes!
The DMCA, when properly used, is a pretty good process:
1. File DMCA to hosting provider
2. Hosting provider removes access to offensive file and informs uploader
3. Uploader can respond
4. Purported owner and uploader resolve situation if necessary
The key here is that you have to be sure you have the right file before starting at step 1, which Jay Lee did. This all went tits-up when GoDaddy decided to shut down all of the related sites instead of just that one resource, but that's not the DMCA or Jay Lee's fault.
Now the big problem with the DMCA is that it's very easy to abuse. But that's not what Mr. Lee was doing with it since he only targeted exactly what belonged to him.
As for RICO, if an individual qualified as a "criminal organization" then hell yes I'd want RICO used against him.
"good guy" and "file a DMCA" don't quite fit in the same paragraph, unless it also includes some form of negation. Seriously. Would you use RICO against an individual who wronged you? Would you send them to Guantanamo? Certain things just aren't done by "good people" even if they happen to be temporarily legal.
You're comparing filing a DMCA request to protect ownership of your creative works to charging someone with racketeering or sending them to an out-of-country prison known to use inhuman tactics? Seriously? And that's being modded "Interesting"?
Wow.
He put a picture on the internet to share it with others who might want to *SEE* it. He did want to share his picture, he simply didn't want someone else claiming it as their own without compensation. Seems fair enough to me.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The Answer is a Lot of light watermarks across the image.
Sorry but it's a fact of the internet. If you dont want your image lifted, only power Low res (1024X768 or less) and watermarked.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Tineye's image similarity is a lot smarter than Google's. Sadly their database is much tinier.
I'm a nature photographer.
Beats being on AM.
He mentions how she's throwing "Think of the children" down his throat but he seems to have seriously caved to it. Why is he cowering in fear at this woman's insane lawsuit threats?
I've got the feeling Jay Lee said or did something that he isn't mentioning in the article. It just doesn't make sense since he's the actual victim here, having his copywritten material used without permission, but he was gonna take the blog entry down that talks about this? What leg does this woman even have to stand on to sue him?
You are depriving him of his commercial rights. Yes, these rights are imaginary, in that they're a social convention to enrich him despite the physical cost of copying is low, but they're there for a reason. They give him incentive to produce and compensate him for the time and effort he puts into crafting and utilizing his skill.
For example, if you have a blog that you don't pay for beyond your time and effort and write a scathing article critiquing Litware for their horrible human rights practices in Elbonia you have no problem with others reading your blog for personal use or personal edification. However, if the Times Picayune Daily copies your article without payment or attribution and puts it on their front page you, technically, have not been deprived of anything, right? But then that article causes hundreds of thousands of people to start purchasing the Times Picayune Daily daily. They continue to rip off your blog and make a hefty profit from your articles. Yet they've not deprived you of anything. Except that now when you want to sell, for example, a hardcover book version of your blog the Times Picayune Daily puts out their "Greatest Hits" book at the same time, undercutting your price. You still haven't lost a thing of value, right?
Or, put another way, turning a lump of steel into a car only costs time and effort, so why should the auto worker be compensated beyond the cost of the steel that went into it, right? Producing that picture took time, effort and skill, so why shouldn't Jay Lee be compensated beyond the material cost of transferring the bits from one place to another?
(I'm trying to keep this as grounded a theory as possible while minimally invoking imaginary property rights. If you wish to continue this line I would suggest we first work out how his time, effort and skill should be compensated since I doubt you will argue that he spent none of that on his photograph and, if you're copying it instead of doing it yourself, you find value in the fact that he did it first.)
Wow so now we all are lawyers? I mean give me break, what has this world come to when copying a photo causes a deluge of DMCA takedowns. If you want to share, post it on the internet. Otherwise stay off of it and go to law school.
Given that the photo was posted on Flickr and clear marked as a copyrighted photo with "all rights reserved", any adult should know better than to think s/he can appropriate for their own commercial enterprise ... and in this specific case, it wasn't just any random person, but in fact a LAWYER that appropriated the work of another.
Before even considering the unprofessional behavior, this was worth a slap from the state bar association, now it's worthy of several slaps and a couple of kicks as well.
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
I think this is a text book example of copyright at work. DMCA and copyright works here as intended and DMCA is helping the little guy in his battle with the pirates, copycats, thieves, aggregators and other parasites.
People were using his photo on commercial websites. What is the problem?
so email them. Ask them to pay or remove or else. The guy jumped (to conclusions) all the way to or else. Maybe some designer used the photo. Maybe they didn't know. Maybe they got it from another site and didn't know who owned it. Image doesn't say copyright on it. Maybe they're evil and stole the photo. Still email them first, maybe they're nice.
/. start supporting abuse of DMCA take-down notices? Thought we hate DMCA notices, and really hated people that abused the system.
And when did
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Wow so now we all are lawyers? I mean give me break, what has this world come to when copying a photo causes a deluge of DMCA takedowns. If you want to share, post it on the internet. Otherwise stay off of it and go to law school.
Does that include free software like Linux, Firefox, etc? So Microsoft should be able to download that software and do whatever they want with it? If you disagree with that statement, what's the difference between Linux, Firefox, and this guy's photograph? What makes the first two copyrightable and the last one not?
One can rail against the RIAA/MPAA and still feel for this photographer. He did not threaten to sue, he did not start a court case to uncover her IP address, he did not try to extort a multi-thousand dollar settlement out of her to avoid a court case that could bankrupt her, he did not bribe political figures to pass scary new laws giving him government like power to shut her down. He filed a takedown notice asking her not to use his copyrighted work.
One can both respect copyright while still deploring powerful groups that abuse those same rules to crush people who can't defend themselves.
No, fair game is if he marks it as creative commons or public domain. He retained copyright. Just because isn't making money off of it doesn't mean other people have permission to use it for their own profit.
Not really.
In short, you have (1) a woman who didn't play by the book and is an asshat, (2) a company that overreacted, and (3) a guy who did play by the book and who clearly had a legitimate beef.
You seem to be directing your outrage at #3.
Way to set priorities, dude. I'm outta here, have a nice day.
I'm a nature photographer.
He sends DMCA notices, then he gets threated to be sued over crap and he gets scared?
Why the fuck did he sent the DMCA notices to begin with, if he wasn't prepared to stand his ground? All he's doing is giving this other person ammo and basicly permission to be a cunt with other peoples properties.
Candice Shwagger is a bully, you stand up to bullies.
Ya, bitch, sue me, stupid cunt.
Be seeing you...