HELP! Photo used without permission and pay by company

[vintagesnaps]

This company already used two of your photos? Then somehow obtained a third and used it without permission or compensation?? Their site shows (edit) a few locations as well as numerous shops that stock their products across the US, if they're that large a company I'd expect they would know they need to pay for usage - especially since they paid for the previous photos.

Try looking at American Society of Media Photographers or PPA for business info. for photographers. You'd need to determine payment and how long usage will be for that photo; I'd also take into account it's featured on their main page in promoting their business.

 

[Tailgunner]

Nope, I am with you all on this but its just done not work that way.

“If the photo is in the public domain, you can take a picture of it, you can reproduce it,” said Chris Sprigman, an intellectual property law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who has written on copyright issues for the Freakonomics blog.

The web is a public domain and their fore that statement apply's.


P.S my lawyer is one of my best friends from when we where in college at university of Florida and i called him and he still says that the above apply's in florida any ways.

Just because s/he's your friend, doesn't make them right. All one has to do in order to disprove your attorney friend is simply review how many people who has actually won their copyright law suit cases. It happens all the time. In fact, people make a good living out of buying up copyrights and suing people over copyright infringements. Why do you think internet forums are strict about only posting images or content that YOU OWN? That is because enough forums and blogs has been sued over it.

Again, I would consult a different attorney.

 

[tirediron]

Ok, but we don't really need a lawyer. We could use a rabid weasel, however. They are not as easy to come by as you might think. I checked Costco already, wouldn't you know it, sold out.

Did you check the ferret aisle too?

Twice. All they had left was a Badger with the flu. I mean seriously. You can't half arse these things.. lol

Costco is sooooooooo over-rated! :roll:

 

[Tee]

We could all take to their Facebook and Twitter feeds and storm the internet with pitchforks. That's the new American way.

 

[The_Traveler]

There are so many angles this topic could be argued from so i will leave it at that.

No, you are just plain misunderstanding here.
Where you have gone astray is your understanding of 'in the public domain.'

"Works in the public domain are those whose intellectual property rights have expired,[SUP][1][/SUP] have been forfeited,[SUP][2][/SUP] or are inapplicable."
Wikipedia and the USPTO

It does not mean work that is displayed in public.

If your friend thinks that anything that is displayed in public is therefore free to copyright, he also is sadly mistaken.

 

[KmH]

If you haven't already, register your copyright ASAP.
What's An Infringement Worth? | Photo Attorney
Help! I've Been Infringed! | Photo Attorney

 

[hamlet]

They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.


For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.

um no, thats not how copyright works.

I consulted my lawyer on that and taking a screen shot is the same as if i where to take a picture of my laptop screen with your image on it using my camera.

His comment was that once i have captured it is no longer a original and there for not copyrighted.

I wish you where right but not according to my lawyer.

When you photography a statue or monument, or even a painting at a museum or other photographers work, you are, in fact, creating a derivative work of copyrighted material, which is legal.

Legal in America perhaps, but not in Belgium. If you photograph any of the above mentioned things, you are in fact not the owner of the picture. If you want to use it or make money off of it, you must first get permission from the person who owns the artwork/building/thing. Otherwise you get in big trouble if you get caught.

 

[robbins.photo]

We could all take to their Facebook and Twitter feeds and storm the internet with pitchforks. That's the new American way.

Well we could.. had anyone bothered to reorder pitchforks from the last time we got a mob whipped up into a frenzy. But nope.. storage locker is pretty much cleared out. And you just can't hand out sporks from the cafeteria for a thing like that. I mean seriously, who storms the castle armed with a spork?

 

[hamlet]

Your lawyer being your best friend is a detriment to his credibility- not a booster for it. Not because of anything you or your friend did, but "best friend" is not a credential for excellence in anything except friendship, and stating it as one kind of diminishes my impression of your judgment.

Your friend may be right... but I kind of doubt it. The entire world would be reselling images that they don't own. There would be websites up all over the place selling these images.

If a photographer can own a photo of a statue or something, how is it that someone cannot own a picture of your picture they have taken? This is all so confusing with different rules for different places even.

 

[Braineack]

If a photographer can own a photo of a statue or something, how is it that someone cannot own a picture of your picture they have taken? This is all so confusing with different rules for different places even.

public domain vs derivative copyright.

 

[hamlet]

I don't understand those terms. I know you folks gotta eat, but it all just seems hypocritical to me. I'll assume that i'm ignorant on this matter till someone actually explains why my question doesn't make sense.

 

[The_Traveler]

One can take a picture for him or herself and display it, post it, etc. if it is in the public space and but cannot reproduce it for other reasons like selling or marketing.

 

[Braineack]

I don't understand those terms. I know you folks gotta eat, but it all just seems hypocritical to me. I'll assume that i'm ignorant on this matter till someone actually explains why my question doesn't make sense.

google the terms and become less ignorant of them.

 

[tirediron]

I don't understand those terms. I know you folks gotta eat, but it all just seems hypocritical to me. I'll assume that i'm ignorant on this matter till someone actually explains why my question doesn't make sense.

google the terms and become less ignorant of them.

Mehh.... you can lead a horse to water...

 

[Braineack]

here's some water: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf