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."
How do I find out who uses my pictures on the internet?
-- Cheers!
This article has got to be a troll. "Can you believe, I found my own work in the hands of pirates, right on the internet," he gushed. Soon, though, all was well in Whoville.
Whats / wheres the story?
When the first phrase of the offending article is "Let's talk about plagiarism..."
It is hilarious that the linked article on the restaurant review site opens with, "LET'S talk about plagiarism, innovation or the often very small adaptations of an idea that pass as evolution in the restaurant business," and then proceeds to violate copyright with its banner photograph!
"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"
Aaaaaannnndddd..../.ed
Any other link?
at the bottom of the article, in bold black letters, they give you credit now.
Mid-Eastern Pennsylvania Gaming Convention
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!"
You don't deserve to have been born clever; you don't deserve to have been born healthy; you don't deserve to have been born in a stable nation; hell, you don't deserve to have been born at all. Nor do you deserve some protection for the fact that you could assemble a series of 0s and 1s in a particular order.
Get over yourself. Contribute what you can and be a good guy about it, and others will contribute likewise. The world's in the shit state it is because everyone thinks they're entitled to protection.
How is this news??
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Jay Lee also hosts a technology radio show out of Houston called Technology Bytes.
If your business model is based on artificial scarcity in the world of nearly free copying of information, you need a new business model. You are making the same mistake as the RIAA.
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.
I read his post and it seemed well-thought out... I've had people rip off my entire website, once upon a time. They changed the background image and lo and behold, it was "his site."
So what I don't get is in the post previous to that one, linked at the top of the page, is him taking pictures where he himself says it's forbidden/not allowed?
(I'd disagree with the signs, too, but still...)
I had a sucky sig.
Elrond: We cannot use the DCMA. That we now know too well. It belongs to Sauron and was made by him alone, and is altogether evil.
Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?
I love how the article that use's Jamie's unattributed pictures starts:
LET'S talk about plagiarism...
Never let a mediocre career stand in the way of a good time
Let us all bow our heads and say a few prayers over the scorch mark on the rack that used to be the baldheretic.com webserver, hoster of the linked original article.
is she going to remove her inflamatory remarks in this post?
http://atty4kids.org/garciajayleecheapshotatty/
Wow. That is what is like when you cross paths with someone that is truly unhinged. If I were Jay, I'd be checking to see if there are any bunnies in boiling pots on my stove.
Point out a completely absurd situation, then link a single photo of a burger you took a picture of, that you found on a review site. You now have credit on the website. you might want to update your OP
Because not everything in this world needs a lawyer.
I've challenged the use of my pictures with the DMCA even though I live in a country that does not have it.
I've even had one person threaten to 'sue my ass off and if that don't work, I'll pepper your ass with buckshot'.
I simply sent the DMCA Takedown to his hosting company.
I have the full documentary evidence to prove that I was in the place where the picture was taken at the time it was taken. So even if he sued me he wouldn't win a bent penny. How do I know that the picture is mine? Well less than 100 people a year visit this place and everyone of them has their names recorded. His name? Not on the list.
Look up South Georgia on the map. A Slam dunk case for me.
on one of her many sites She sound like a b****.
Candice Shwagger now that her antics have made the front page of /.
Its well knows that the weenies on /. have issues with cyberbullies, and a very long memory.
Its a good thing that nobody here would print that page to PDF and keep it archived and continue to remind the world of her shennigannis for a very long time.
I think Houston's best marketing attorny is going to be having problems since future clients will call her site into question because she's pladgerizing other peoples work. The Texas Bar association should really know about this, perhaps they will take action and actually end her career.
While photos are fairly easy to duplicate, registering them with the copyright office shortly after taking them is a pretty powerful argument when people use them outside of the attributions you license them with. If a site is infringing on their work, tell them to ask their lawyer about going to court over a registered copyright and they'll settle real quick. It's the difference between $500 and $50,000 if it ever goes to court. This does several things. 1) it demonstrates that you took the photo. 2) That you are asserting copyright (and quickly at that) 3) opens up the infringers to further damage apart from time and materials. There's a recent book on photography and copyright that's a good reference.
..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!
"Now she’s trying my patience. She’s going back and forth offering the pay me and threatening to sue me and beating the “save the babies” drum very hardand upside me head."
/. mis-spelled the name. Doesn't look like she's missing too many meals
This is the type of gold one used to find on cruel.com from time to time.
http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/candice-schwager?slide=37962031
You have 48 hours to remove your nauseating bullshit or you will be sued for libel, defamation, slander, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
libel and slander from an internet post. wonder how that shit works.
For fuck's sake, get over yourselves. So you took a picture, and someone liked it and used it. Do you honestly think that you're something special when you click the button on your camera? How about the people who designed and built the structures you took the picture of? What about the restaurant that created the meal you snapped a picture of? (author of post). What if these people demanded royalties or some other form of attribution that they pull out of their asses? They CAN'T, luckily for you. (Though they do try in some countries)
I have taken pictures and one of them comes to mind. I didn't think a lot of it at the time, it was a picture of the sun setting over an island with a lighthouse, in the early spring when the ice was breaking up. Pink sky, reflecting on the ice. Yes, I stood in exactly the right place and focused the camera to get the best shot I could, to capture that effect. It was quite a nice picture and I was happy that a bunch of people liked it and used it. They don't need my fucking permission... I put it on the Internet and they took it.
Candice Schwager's blog post is still up at http://chicksandpolitics.com/ and it is hilarious.
Oh, god, she has YouTube channel, and has a ladyboner for Newt Gingrich: http://www.youtube.com/user/candilaw99
It is my professional opinion as a programmer that this woman is mentally ill and should be disbarred.
Then maybe she should have been more careful about where she got her photos from. Although it seems to me like she is someone who is VERY accustomed to having her own way all the time.
Why in the world would he capitulate to her insane demands? She violated his copyright, and has not successfully intimidated him into leaving her alone AND taking down his blog post about the incident? Nail her to the courtroom wall.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
I would have thought pictures of little "MR" girls in safety helmets would be more effective than ones of sky-scrapers.
Amusing comments in the "recent posts by others" section, though...
"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."
From the link...
"THE FOOD PICTURES ON THIS PAGE COME FROM JAMES KITSON AND CAN BE VIEWED HERE. THANKS FOR THE USE OF THEM."
Watch out there, if Candace finds out this is here she may decide to sue the whole lot of us for “libel, defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and seek punitive damages as well as actual, court costs, attorney fees, and interest”. Translated from lawyer-speak into English -- ;-(
To avoid copyright issues of my own.... Read more: http://www.baldheretic.com/2012/05/23/protecting-my-copyright#ixzz1vuKTe5iY
sudo make me a sandwich
She sounds bat shit crazy.
.(drumroll, guess!)Houston Chronicle. A guy like Jay Lee would know how to inflict the most harm with a single shot. So, he did. Read his column and ask yourself: was this guy really clueless as to how host sites carry others and how to I.D. The host, disabling all. Motive? Muddy the Water of an overblown 4 year old set up. Though 4 Judges and the AG found that Garcia improperly withheld exculpatory evidence to terminate Guthrie without cause, Camp Garcia is desperate to poke holes and twist clear facts: Guthie beat him badly 3x. My blogs are the only high. ranked discussions of the Attorney General, 14th Court of Appeals, and Judge Caroline Baker’s rulings. Dillon butchered them, but lacks credibility due to Pittman agenda.
http://chicksandpolitics.com/
There are pages of this rambling nonsense:
I’m still shell shocked, because it’s pretty clear that Jay Lee was hand picked for crafty weasliness with advanced studies in computer hacking. He also happens to be an amateur photographer at
I'm on Candice's side. I mean grow up. You put a picture on the internet and other people used it. Big deal. Get over yourself. If you don't want to share, don't put it on the internet. So now everyone needs to jump through legal hoops to share things? Ridiculous.
Her Blogspot site ...
http://attorney4specialneeds.blogspot.com/
Has the same logo as ...
http://activesportfitness.co.uk/
Someone seems to have copied it from the other.
Thanks to Google Goggles for that quick research!
I think it's reasonable for the photographer to request the picture be removed by the site operator before filing a DMCA notice. I can understand, however, why he wouldn't considering his photo is being used all over the place and he can't contact everybody individually. If he had done so though, I bet she would have just replaced the image (I hope).
If you receive a bogus DMCA takedown notice you have the right to name and shame the culprit. If you, however, receive a legitimate takedown notice then you are violating someone else's copyright and maybe you should have checked out the provenance on the image on your front page before deciding to just go ahead and use it. This woman's behavior is childish and shameful. She constructed this machiavellian conspiracy theory just so she doesn't have to feel stupid for using someone else's photo without credit or permission and then bullied the photographer into submission by hurling unsubstantiated slurs against his character.
If anyone in this mess is guilty of libel, it's Schwagger.
The DMCA takedown notice procedure is almost certainly part of the problem. As copyright enforcement tools go, it's a hammer and not a scalpel. Lee could have approached her differently for sure, but her reaction is so over the top and ridiculously childish that it staggers the imagination.
Give me free pictures or I'll sue you. Is that the rationale?
Look, lady, take your own damn picture of Houston or find one under free license. Is that so difficult for an attorney to figure out?
On the other hand, using the DMCA from the start is a bit harsh because of the side-effects (e.g., whole sites being disabled, depending on how the ISP handles it). It would have been simpler to send a regular note to whoever the website contact is, ask them nicely not to use the (copyrighted) image without permission, and if they didn't respond in a week or two, then say "Fine. I'll use the DMCA process and see what your ISP thinks of the issue."
Do we care? Both of them are crazy. Take your nutjob rants and DMCA takedowns and stuff 'em where the sun don't shine.
I bet if the photographer walked into any lawyer's office and stated the case the lawyer would be happy to counter sue. Bowing to threats just lets the bullies get away with intimidation. There are laws against threats and baseless lawsuits. She would have to pay legal fees if something like this ever went to court. Hiding behind non-profit status does not make bullying OK.
Another avenue is that since she is a lawyer you could forward the communications to the State Bar association as baseless threats of lawsuits is an ethical issue. The Bar may not do anything but they may. If one does not try then it defiantly will never work. As Gretzky said "Every shot not taken will miss."
I can't wait until she finds out it is on /. and comes over here with her rant and threats. That should make for some really good reading!
This is what you get when you have laws in place like the DMCA. Some thug (not that I'm calling Lee a thug) can come along and threaten all sorts of outlandish damages. GoDaddy, in order to cover its *ss, just pulls the plug, rather than waiting to see if the notice was posted in error or other accommodations could have been made. Who knows? Perhaps all Lee needed was a few bucks and provide proper attribution for the photo. And its not just an issue of mitigating the real damages (which would involve taking down only the offending site). GoDaddy is running so scared, they pull the plug on everything.
Have gnu, will travel.
At your leisure, go find a post about big business with a takedown notice. You'll see comment after comment basically stating "fuck big business and da police!" Then ask yourself if you feel any different reading this article and, if you do, go fuck yourself. I know Schwager is embarrassingly manic, but look past that. See how easy it was for Jo Schmo to get a takedown granted without going through the courts? He shared it on the internet and, assuming she had even considered its copyright, Schwager had no idea who it belonged to or the license behind it.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Anyone know what the photographer offered to license his picture for ? $100, $1000? Seems to be the missing detail of the interesting back and forth... Weird.
You'd be astonished how many attorneys are (or present as) bi-polar. This lady sounds like one.
---------------------------------------
Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
Some people have the warped idea that once one has put something on the internet that it's automatically "with-out" cost and for "free use", unless clearly stated otherwise. The notion "well, they should have put a watermark on it" excuses the theft in some peoples(thieves) minds.
This view even exists in people who consider themselves as "law-abiding".
I run a site about a medical condition mainly affecting children, I do this with absolutely no financial incentive.... so I'm in the situation to say that just having a site "dedicated to promoting and supporting special needs children" IS NO F*CKING EXCUSE !!!! (pardon my blatant us of caps)
I wonder if this bat shit crazy woman has ever heard of it. Shall we teach her all about it? I'm not a lawyer, but I play one when drunk. It seems to me that her mind numbing dribble ramblings about Jay are the epitome of libel.
Apparently she has never heard of the Streisand effect. Most of her sites are offline and her facebook pages are getting hammered... Sweet internet justice :).
I suggest that he contact a couple of the better legal blogs (like Popehat). The lawyer-bloggers tend to take a dim view of lawyers who make ludicrous legal threats. He might well get a bit of much-needed support and useful advice.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Seems the problem is GoDaddy, not the law.
If you RTFA, you would see that most notified the owners of the websites and the content was taken down. GoDaddy seems to have just removed the entire account because of one DMCA.
Let me first say that the lady is crazy and did not go about things like a sane person would. Let me also say that I am not a fan of the DMCA, but from a legal standpoint I think this guy should stick to his guns if he truly cares about his claims. That being said...
Looking at the actual photograph in question, anyone with a nice camera and a basic understanding of Photoshop (or even Instagram) could reproduce this, or something damn well close (especially considering the images are only being used at web resolution). If the accused parties weren't lazy themselves, they would just go out and take essentially the exact same picture and then avoid this whole scenario. Now, combine the fact that this photo is unoriginal/easily reproducable, with the fact that this guy is giving up his DMCA claim now that someone is pushing back on him, makes it look to me like he actually is trying to "extort" money from her in a way.
Scenario: Guy puts camera on tripod and takes photo of downtown. Runs it through an HDR filter in Photoshop. Total time spent: 20 minutes. Guy then spends hours, days perhaps, searching online for people that are using his photo and sending them very impersonal legal threats, asking for money, and going as far as to have their websites removed from the internet. That seems really harsh to me, considering the photo in question.
He may think he is protecting his intellectual property, but to me, I just see some dude taking "Introduction to Photography"-level photos and then trying to sell them for a bunch of money. Steve Mccurry is a real photographer, we should reserve DMCA notices for original creative content like his, not some snapshot of a downtown skyline that probably thousands of tourists have strikingly similar pics of from their vacation.
My advice to this guy would be to get a real job and contribute something more to society than taking pictures of buildings and then demanding people pay you because you foolishly posted it online without a watermark. But I guess when you are already a starving artist, its easier to try and extort money from people for your poor excuse for art than it is to get a real job that actually contributes to society, or at least try to produce genuine, original art that is not so ordinary looking as to create the impression that no one would care if it were used like it has been.
...who is next in line for the same treatment?
What her conduct says about her in this instance sheds light on everything else she does. If I were her employer, she'd be terminated.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Personally, I would have stood my ground and let the legal system work for me in this.
You were in the right, to protect what's yours, and she used character assassination, and intimidation to get you to do what was in HER best interests, and no one else's. There are laws regarding such things, and what she did appears to be against most of them (think MAFIA tactics).
Stay strong, stand your ground, and make her pay for the wrong she's done.
Reading just bits and pieces of this lady's blog it is quite apparent that she is full-on batshit, tea-party, paranoid-about-liberal-media crazy. Ignoring the fact that most of her wrath should be directed toward the insane policies of GoDaddy who are the ones who decided to shut down ALL her sites over a single photograph, she needs to have someone with backbone sue her dumb ass for slander and defamation so she can see how the law actually works. She needs a massive mental slap upside the head to rattle her brain back into place. She's pulling conspiracies out of thin air left and right, making all kinds of accusations without a shred of evidence. Oh, her evidence is, "I don't believe in coincidences."
I love the cognitive dissonance of these people. She quotes a supposed conservative psychologist expounding on some sort of horribly obvious but also incredibly nebulous psychological "problem" with Obama: "His externalizing all blame to conservatives, George W. Bush, or the “racist” bogeyman hints at persecutory delusions." Funny, I thought that's what conservatives were doing all day long, in the other direction. Externalizing all blame for literally EVERYTHING to liberals and Obama. Pot, kettle, carbon motherfuckin' black.
Wow. Just wow. Reading that blog is scary. She should apply for a job at Fox News. I'm sure she'd fit in perfectly. Now excuse me while I go scrub the crazy out of my brain with some Dragonball.
It took me a full five minutes before I realized the woman's name wasn't "Schwanger". I'm not saying what she did was right, but I understand....
From the review link in TFS:
Jeeze - the review/story talks about plagiarism immediately after the copied & unattributed photo: doesn't that almost count as fair-use? /joke. Note, emphasis in quote added by yours truly.
I thought it must have been modified since this kerfuffle came to light, but it appears to be original text...
which is why all my uploaded photography has a copyright text....
...and stupid to assert your copyright, why should we care? Maybe you really don't hold the copyright to those images.
Or maybe you're just a giant pussy and everything wrong with the copyright debate.
Either way, you got beat by a bully. Now give me your fucking lunch money, bitch.
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?
I don't know, I think if I were running some sort of mission critical website, I'd at least make sure the images I use had a proper license or were clearly public domain or whatever. I'd hate for my important website to be taken down over some preventable issue.
Even at that, if she has a non-profit fair use exemption, I don't think there's any law that says she CAN'T notify the copyright holder that she's exercising fair use rights.
And just to cap it off, if MY websites were so important, they sure as hell wouldn't be on low-buck GoDaddy shared hosting.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's on the internet, so it's freely usable right?
http://www.whenigrowupi.com/uploads/8/0/2/7/8027750/3500567.jpg?165
Yeah, that's a picture of Candice Schwagger. I'm sure she'll agree to your "free & non-profit" use of it in any way desired. Do I sense a new Meme Sensation?!?
First: since when does Slashdot give a fuck about people's copyrights?
Second: file a complaint against the bitch. It's against the rules in every state to threaten frivolous legal action. She doesn't have to be *your* lawyer for you to do this.
Wow. It's hard to believe that such utterly ghastly people exist. Is this the new face of right-wing America?
Her blog is rife with personal attacks, wild fantasies, conspiratorial bullshit and all manner of general pure.. NASTINESS.
What a truly truly horrible woman.
Her 12-year old child may have been diagnosed as mentally handicapped, but it still has a fair chance to surpass its mother.
A lot of lawyers use the law like a weapon -- a blunt club that they can use to intimidate and coerce, even when they're in the wrong. In case you are a lawyer and don't understand why people hate your job: this is exhibit A. (Obligatory IANAL.)
Treasure hunt! Try to find another photo she has that is infringing and get the owner of the copyright to submit another DMCA takedown!
Thought we hate DMCA notices, and really hated people that abused the system.
We do, as soon as he abuses the system you be sure to let us know.
Use is not abuse. It was a little strong, but it's not out of line. If he started mass sending DMCA notices without checking to see if it was his image, that is abuse. If he used DMCA notices to shut down a site for the sole purpose of shutting down a site, that is abuse. He filed a notice using the tools given to him, GoDaddy are the ones that overreact to DMCA notices.
Would you rather he went straight to a copyright infringement lawsuit? He could have done that. Then the first notice she would have gotten was, 'hi, I'm suing you for using my pictures commercially, see you in court'.
I have a few images on my web site, and I'm aware of the "problem" of copyright infringement. However it also depends on how they are used. If someone uses a picture commercially I expect to get credit for it. But if it's just for pleasure - viewing the image or using it as a desktop background I don't worry about it.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I strongly recommend this photographer not back down. I (and I'm sure a lot of other people) would like to contribute to a legal fund to support him in his quest and to take down this arrogant woman using her barely adequate legal prowess to bully a photographer.
The focus has been on the crazy woman, but GoDaddy has a big part of the blame here:
And, as it turned out, all of these sites are linked together as far as GoDaddy is concerned which resulted in all 14 of them going down after I filed my complaint.
A photographer filed a DMCA request asserting that a single image was infringing. GoDaddy took down 14 web sites in response. GoDaddy should be liable for damages for taking down 13 of those sites, and potentially for all 14. Now in this case, little harm was done. But imagine the real-world equivalent: A poster is on a wall and so the entire building is leveled. Does that make sense? If a single phone bill is late, does the entire neighborhood lose their phone service? If an electric bill is late does the entire city block lose power? GoDaddy's response makes no sense, and the DMCA should not protect them from such stupidity.
This reads a little like some of the old Leonard J. Crabs articles from Something Awful back in the day.
More Twoson than Cupertino
She's not even Houston's best marketing attorney. She's in marketing FOR attorneys. And it doesn't even look like real marketing, more internet "marketing" such as web design, SEO, social media, etc. You'd think that Houston's best attorney marketing would at least be on the first page of google results for "Houston attorney marketing".
After the blog post with her name, she could try to sue him, but she would lose that suit and the countersuit he filed as she is actually the one defaming him.
One legal threat--fine. Crazy lady escalating over and over again with no further interaction without ever stopping--not so fine.
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...
and we are supposed to feel sorry for him when someone lashes back at him? He is a jerk!
Can you spell psycho? I would have fought this; that woman is a nutcase!
I don't have much sympathy for either party. Only a raging asshole STARTS the conversation with a DMCA takedown. The rather shrill response from the target of the shutdown does dampen my sympathy for her a good bit though.
With so much overwhelming support for Mr. Lee and so much vitriol against the unstable Ms. Shwagger, there should be at least one voice questioning the matter...
If you read TFA you might note that Jay Lee may have a connection to the political candidate Candice hates so much. You will also note his connection with the newspaper, but not his role (does he or his close associates report on politics?).
We can't really determine from the information he has provided whether there is any ulterior motive for his takedown notice.
He seems to have sent notices to other infringers- but how many? Five or fifty? If five then one might possibly suspect that he was out to get her or the political candidate she supports. He seems surprised that GoDaddy would shut down her sites; but how can we be sure he didn't know?
Not saying it's true, and I admit that he sounds like a reasonable person, but with all the words flying around there is still a shortage of solid information or assurances to defend his innocence.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Not that she isn't batshit crazy, but your labelling of her as "leftist" tells us more about your political leanings than hers. When a USian uses that word to describe someone else, the rest of the world understands that as a self-proclamation as "another US frothing right wing extremist". I was going to add "and giggles", but this mental illness affecting a third of Americans is no longer a laughing matter, if it ever was.
took essentially the same picture from the same bridge?
He has taken his page down. Right will I was reading his comments.
She is sure a piece of work
Does anyone know what might happen if he did make a complaint to the state bar?
You can decide what side of things to put me on.
I believe that in responsibility lies strength.
That "a job" is better than "a check".
That children need parents.
That people you can not fire will not do a good job.
That politicians want power.
That if you reward something you will get more of it.
That if you punish something you will get less of it.
That prosecuting a "War" on a weed is a losing battle.
That if you think that life begins when a sperm meets an egg you are an idiot.
That if you think that inconvenience means that you can kill a baby 2 min before it is born you are evil.
That even though sometimes it gets in the way of what you want the constitution still has real worth.
That politically correct speech is a fancy term for not telling the truth.
That the ADA has done more harm than good.
That when the law becomes so complex that you need a professional to defend you justice can not be served.
That politics should never be a career.
and
That we have the government we deserve.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Lesson 1: caring about peoples feelings on the internet is dumb.
Lesson 2: IM SUING ALL OF YOU, OMG BETTER GET REALLY UPSET
... they want their Streisand Effect back
I never expected to read a story where the DMCA was actually used properly and could be used to "protect the little guy." It's amusing that he also managed to stumble upon a bees nest with a crazy queen running it. Talk about paranoid and simply out of control. Unforunately, I know people like that... funnier when it happens to other people.
If it were me, I'd be more than willing to settle matters like adults. But as soon as the other party merely THREATENS a lawsuit, then it is clear THEY do NOT want to settle.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Mrs. Timecube?
Barbra Streisand attacks attacks again.
As God is my witness, I would never want this woman as my lawyer for anything after her display of this. Nor would I want any candidate that she would ever support. For the thief to be crying foul is the most foul deed of all.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Um, she is a lawyer?!?!
She signs up for a service (web hosting and domain registration) with a company and AGREES TO THE COMPANY'S POSTED TERMS OF SERVICE which include notice that the service can be shut down by the company for any of a number of reasons, copyright infringement being one of them. Then, having agreed to not use the company's hosting for illegal activities (including copyright infringement) she goes out and infringes on a host of others' copyrighted properties. I say, let her sue, countersue and take EVERYTHING SHE OWNS. She deserves to be living out of a cardboard box. Dastardly is the word I use for this type, dastardly.
Is the first line in the article with the stolen burger picture. Funny stuff.
Is this how brutal you treated that long list of hotels using the same photo? You can't say it was only on Flickr if it's everywhere. Overboard
She really contradicts her self!
"Candice Schwager says:
May 8, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Great piece! Rest assured, LM, Mr. Jennings is not biased. Educate yourself by reading before blind accusation. I have the unique perspective of knowing Louis Guthrie since High School and being a lawyer, who has great respect for Judge Caroline Baker and the Appellate Courts. Read the decisions before you shoot the messenger! Mr. Jennings reported what happened in Courts, hardly bias. Sorry you didn’t like the outcome. Whose campaign are you working? Curious?"
Blind accusation???
Rule 8.4 Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
While her nonprofit work might be commendable, what this woman is doing is abusing the power she has as an attorney. It's possible she's also violating Rules 3.1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_1_meritorious_claims_contentions.html, 4.1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_4_1_truthfulness_in_statements_to_others.html, and/or others.
I'm sure it will get a lot of chuckles, but practicing lawyers cannot simply make things up, threaten people with actions they know (or at least that a competent attorney would know) are devoid of merit, or knowingly make a false claim. Such as "You cost me thousands in billable time and I could sue you. You are fortunate it came back up because..."
It's the kind of weasel hedge you'd expect from a crank, but one a Bar disciplinary committee could see through in a second. Because while technically she could sue (technically you can bring suit for just about anything), as an attorney she knows perfectly well that she cannot file frivolous claims and expect to escape sanction.
She needs to be checked, hard.
she has a linkedin profile as well
http://www.linkedin.com/in/candiceleonardschwager
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Feel free to inform them. IANAL so I don't know the procedure, but simply informing them then allowing them to decide for themselves can't hurt:
http://www.texasbar.com/am/template.cfm?section=home
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Had it been music, games, or heaven forbid..... Software.... This site would have crucified you.... I guess photographers' rights are different.
The DMCA is a bad law and he's a bad person for using it. Further, he knew that GoDaddy overreacts to DMCA notices, and he used one _anyway_ for a GoDaddy site, which makes him an even worse person.
Why should we or anyone else believe her claims? Does she offer legit proof of her claims? She just threatens? I can't find her listed as a member of the bar, but I have little knowledge on these issues. If someone would please clarify. I used info/claims from her linkedin profile, and just search her on the state bar website. I'm just thinking it is easier to make a bunch of websites claiming any what all you want and threaten people, than it is to do actual work. Maybe it is all true, and I'm a jerk for not believing it. By why should I? If i wanted sympathy disabled children is just ahead of orphan, blind puppies. And she is from Texas . . . http://www.linkedin.com/in/candiceleonardschwager Just my (reasoned, somewhat) speculations. -dr:u
Ahhh but she also claims she is an attorney on her linkedin profile, which I submit she is not, as she is not a member of the bar, (look it up yourself, just punch in her name.) http://www.linkedin.com/in/candiceleonardschwager "Attorney / Consultant at The Schwager Law Firm" and "Bachelor of Arts, Psychology; Philosophy 1992 – 1994" and double major B.A.'s in 2 years? I highly doubt it.
They both seem reprehensible to me. I hope they make life difficult for each other. I love this nonchalant line from the "victim":
"I have been sending DMCA take-down notices on so many sites it was becoming an cookie cutter assembly line process".
"Victim 1"
You took a picture. You weren't selling it. You just took a picture and people used it. For that they get their special-needs children's websites yanked. Douche.
"Victim 2"
You could have just asked nicely after the take down. I know it was a dick move to have your 14 sites shut down, but a nice plea may have made the Grinch's heart grow three sizes that day. This crazy bullshit? Come on.
MC
/. finds me to be 20% Troll, 80% Funny
The woman is insane. Probably not even a real lawyer. She has other presumably stolen photos on her blog. Check out this one:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oL9i7Eh_9x4/TzDcqEe5WPI/AAAAAAAAD80/0dDyPERWP4M/s1600/win.jpg
Then look here: http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=1192820 Notice how the crop conveniently removes the watermark?
And really... does she have permission to use Winnie the Pooh and Dr. Suess images?
...lawyers, claiming ignorance of the DMCA is a bit of a stretch. Even if none of the lawyers working for this non-profit aren't specialists in "intellectual property", they ought to know what the DMCA is and that using someone else's work without attribution is wrong regardless of whether you knew where it came from or not. If you couldn't find the photographer's name, you would, at the very least, attribute the web site from where you downloaded the image. Heck, at least then the rightful owner would know where to direct their takedown notice. But this wasn't just some obscure web site where the image was found. It was freakin' Flickr! After trying to follow the Joyce-like stream of consciousness writing on this woman's web site, I got the impression that she thinks that what you find on Flickr is free for reuse. Didn't read the either the "Community Guidelines" or the FAQ, it appears. The terms of using someone's photo seem pretty clear to me: request to license the image. I'd think that not bothering to do that would have that little voice that most of us have in our heads saying "don't use it".
Non-profit? Doesn't really matter now, does it. Wrong is wrong whether you're a non-profit or not. Just because you're working with special needs kids isn't a free pass. I have friends with special needs kids or relatives. They don't use that as an excuse to, say, take stuff from the grocery store without paying for it.
(Reminder to self: don't post photographs online unless I a.) want to retain a lawyer to write nasty takedown letters to bozos who think they're free, b.) make sure that the online version is of low enough quality that I won't care too much if someone's stupid enough to use it or, c.) watermark the hell out of any image that is posted so that any theft is obvious.)
Wish I had the chance to be your champion: take the lead in totally disabling that lady in every possible way and dare her to do whatever. Perhaps we could duel with pistols. I hate people like that and have always run straight at them and their threats barehanded, whether they had chains and knives, guns and tanks, or lawyers and politicians. So far they have run from me lol.
(It’s a street thing. Act absolutely certain you are about to kill your enemy if they so much as think a thought you don’t approve of, and they will generally consider that there may just be some chance that you really can and really would).
Uh-oh, now she's after me: https://twitter.com/Bostonglobalz/status/206188080007348225
...I really need to go see the Avengers again. I could watch Scarlet own Loki and Hawkeye twenty times over.
We steal her photo and re-post it on every non-profit site that'll host it? When she complains/DMCAs them, have them send her a boiler-plate response (or a link to Jay's site) in her own words!
Or just let 4chan have a go at it. I'd love to see her file millions of takedown notices.
This, incidentally, is the way most psycho-bitches work: they do ONE good thing (special needs kids), and they think it entitles them to do any damn thing they want.
Crazy fsck.
Candice Schwager and Paul Andrew Mitchell, two nuts off of the same tree
I don't understand why everyone is so pissed at the Crazy Lady and very few comment on GoDaddy's insane policy!
Who in their right mind would host a site on GoDaddy if someone can take down ALL YOUR SITES without warning just by sending GoDaddy a DMCA. Yes, in this case it was at least a valid DMCA, but a malicious person could send a fake one that does seem valid on first sight.
The OP did not abuse the DMCA (he could have sent a simple email to the site owners first - but the big companies send DMCAs en masse, why should a person wronged refrain), but GoDaddy is abusing it. Would it be hard to implement a warning, or to remove just the image/page? Or in the end take down just one site?
Imagine if you provide the sites for many clients and use GoDaddy to host them. If one of them gets a DMCA, all your clients will be screwed.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
tools given to me is a shotgun, should i shoot my neighbors for the loud music? No? Call the police you say? Ask them to turn it down? Naw, nuke from orbit, i wont say anything just rip them apart.
False equivalence, murder and mass murder are not equal to a website service disruption. Next argument.
Suing is waaaay better. Site stays up, court decides, pay a judgement and you're done. As a website owner I would MUCH rather fight in court than watch the site go down for even a day.
Lawsuit, Step 1, injunction to stop ongoing infringement. Site is now down by court order, restore process now involves court schedule. Next argument.
ripping a business website off the internet is probably the worse thing you can do to a online business, hence nuke from orbit.
A very good point. I suggest we ask GoDaddy why they did that. Next argument.
I'm incredibly shocked the entire internet hasn't turned on this asshole and post every photo he's ever taken all over every website on earth.
Because he was right and his actions were, while a little harsh, justified and correct. GoDaddy was the group that overreacted. Next argument.
Screw this prick.
Your sexual preferences are not relevant to this discussion.
This story is HI larious. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=conny_permission
on her site ilawyer.com I found a nice picture at the top (looked a bit familiar) so I googled it using the image tool.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CFoQFjAL&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2009%2F06%2F22%2Fjohnny-depp-as-mad-hatter_n_218747.html&ei=3vfAT7TpHtCK6QGhnKDICg&usg=AFQjCNHSZsUb3Bh-JNcPUBsCSM1Svy5sfg
Can you say this dizzy bitch is using a photo of Anne Hathaway from an upcoming as yet unreleased film as if it were her own?
DISNEY has real lawyers and they will make short work of this wanna-be.
Also, posting on the Flickr photo sharing site, like may people, opens you up to having your photos stolen. Seems lots of people think if they find a photo on the Internet, it's free to use any way they want to. Few people ask for permission or even give you credit!
I have a 1px by 1px image (#ffffff). Can I consider this copyrighted?
Heh, yeah it is true. The copyright infringing lawyer simulator is just another freeloading right wing teabagger. They don't respect copyright laws, game laws, the constitution, women who aren't barefoot and pregnant or much of anything else. The whackjob probably has been standing out in the rain too long and needs to change the teabag on it's forehead.
https://plus.google.com/photos/118265322862921729635/albums/profile/5749611773134810386
You don't often find people bragging about being a bitch. The funny thing is she is wading knee deep into the internet while claiming to be a social networking expert. Ouch, not with pictures like that on your personal easily searchable page.
http://atty4kids.org/ is offline again as of noon Sunday.
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache Server at atty4kids.org Port 80
Seems that atty4kids has gone to 404 land. Interesting, that.
This sig no verb.