Copyright infringement - the idiot guide

[photographyprogess]

Well. It has escalated. My "friend" has written me a letter where he accuses me of wanting to do him "harm", and he will not pay me the money for the use of the picture as, and I quote him, "... the picture was put on a blog, and therefore free to use." (Translation by me)

He has also called me on my phone several times, and a few sms messages, and made threats toward me. There will be consequenses if I continue my falsely accusations.

So the future is starting to look a bit more "interesting". I hadn't originally planned to go this far, but I have decided to take this all the way to court as he has gone way too far. So I'm leaving this matter to my lawyer, and I will report his threats to the police.

 

[Overread]

Sounds like the right thing to do - also keep a log of all contact with him and keep any messages he send to you via phone - harrassment is another thing you can add to the kettle and might be taken more seriously by the courts as well.

My guess is that, like many, he is hoping that the net will save him since most people bluster a lot more, feeling safe that they are far enough away not to be affected.

 

[photographyprogess]

Well, as he claims he has several lawyers I guess I'll have some interesting days and months ahead. (How he would afford these lawyers I can't really understand as his yearly income is approx. 36.000$. Which is the average income in Norway. I'm making about 5 times more myself.)


PS: And his blog is still not available. So I got a feeling he's not willing to prove his ownership of the pics to the DC.

 

[photographyprogess]

Well, there has been some interesting developments in this case. We have come to terms, and the blogger is going to pay me approx. 1500$ as compensation for the use of the photo and the costs to my lawyer.

It seems like he has spoken with a lawyer, or maybe all three as he claimed he had several lawyers, which told him he would loose the case in the court. So the moral? Don't mess with a Norwegian amateur photographer who's strongheaded.

 

[FrankLamont]

Good job -- don't back down...

Though I suspect that 'friend' is no longer a friend, eh?

 

[Garbz]

I just read that as don't mess with a Nigerian, and thinking wow who in their right mind would hand over $1500 to a Nigerian.

Good work

 

[skieur]

In Norway we don't have to register the copyright. The photo is copyrighted as soon as it's published.

Same for Canada.

skieur

 

[Plato]

I just read that as don't mess with a Nigerian, and thinking wow who in their right mind would hand over $1500 to a Nigerian.

Anyone that has been contacted by the legal representative of the bank that's holding the funds of the deposed king!

 

[KmH]

Well, there has been some interesting developments in this case. We have come to terms, and the blogger is going to pay me approx. 1500$ as compensation for the use of the photo and the costs to my lawyer.

It seems like he has spoken with a lawyer, or maybe all three as he claimed he had several lawyers, which told him he would loose the case in the court. So the moral? Don't mess with a Norwegian amateur photographer who's strongheaded.

:thumbup:

 

[chammer]

i had been following along with this as you've been posting. thats awesome that things still can and do work out correctly these days!

 

[musicaleCA]

In Norway we don't have to register the copyright. The photo is copyrighted as soon as it's published.

Same for Canada.

skieur

That, my friend, is completely wrong, in the case of any commissioned or ordered work. The following is a direct quote from Section 13.2 of the Copyright Act:

"Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright."


For any commissioned work by any photographer in Canada, their contract with the client (or person/entity ordering the work) must state that the photographer is the first owner of copyright (and better yet for the photographer, forfeiture of the client's copyright), otherwise the person or entity paying the photographer owns copyright. (And no, keeping your RAWs and calling that the "original" won't save you in this case. That's why CAPIC and PPOC are pushing to have this legislation changed.)

That said, if the work isn't commissioned, yes, you own copyright.

Furthermore, in the US, it's not a case of you not owning copyright if you don't register. You own copyright as soon as an image is registered, but your ability to sue and claim damages for any infringement is severely limited in the US if your images are not registered. If you don't register your images, even though you hold copyright, you won't be able to take the case to court (talk about messed up).

Edit: I should also mention that worse still for Canadian photographers, is the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1998 in Aubry v. Éditions Vice‑Versa, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591 . In short, this case set a nation-wide precedent that taking a picture of someone on the street, in a public area (bloody hell you've gotta be kidding me) can be considered an invasion of privacy. The full text of the ruling can be found here. The argument that this ruling only applies to Quebec is false; for one it was made by the Supreme Court, and two, the language of the ruling is far broader than that.

In any case, the best source of information that doesn't require you to have an understanding of law (or at least, far less of one than what one needs to understand the court ruling above), is AmbientLight.ca.

 

[Plato]

Edit: I should also mention that worse still for Canadian photographers, is the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1998 in Aubry v. Éditions Vice‑Versa, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591 . In short, this case set a nation-wide precedent that taking a picture of someone on the street, in a public area (bloody hell you've gotta be kidding me) can be considered an invasion of privacy. The full text of the ruling can be found here. The argument that this ruling only applies to Quebec is false; for one it was made by the Supreme Court, and two, the language of the ruling is far broader than that.

There are always conflicting "rights" and that sounds like the result of a photographer or multiple photographers having gone too far. The pendulum has swung back.

 

[KmH]

In Norway we don't have to register the copyright. The photo is copyrighted as soon as it's published.

Same for Canada.

skieur

In the US, copyright ownership is established at the moment the shutter is released, and unless a written agreement states otherwise, belongs to the photographer for the rest of the photographers life, + 70 years (+50 years in Canada, I believe).

In the US, copyright registration has to do with the type of infringement damage award, statutory or actual, that can be sought in federal court.

 

[musicaleCA]

Edit: I should also mention that worse still for Canadian photographers, is the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1998 in Aubry v. Éditions Vice‑Versa, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591 . In short, this case set a nation-wide precedent that taking a picture of someone on the street, in a public area (bloody hell you've gotta be kidding me) can be considered an invasion of privacy. The full text of the ruling can be found here. The argument that this ruling only applies to Quebec is false; for one it was made by the Supreme Court, and two, the language of the ruling is far broader than that.

There are always conflicting "rights" and that sounds like the result of a photographer or multiple photographers having gone too far. The pendulum has swung back.

Doesn't matter. The point is that the precedent was set that taking pictures of someone in a public area can be considered in a court of law to be an invasion of privacy. The legal system is not a swinging pendulum.

 

[epp_b]

Boing Boing: Digital cameras have unique "noise" fingerprints?

Noise profiling. See an image used without your permission, you can prove you have the original by matching the original photo to the unique noise signature your camera makes.