Should I Be Upset About This?

[crimbfighter]

Well, it certainly is frustrating that your image is being used without permission and that you may have to go through some rigamaroo to get it corrected. That being said, if what's important is credit or having it removed, a simple email or phone call would probably be a good place to start. Most companies understand the value of copyright and would prefer to comply to avoid any issues.

With today's prevelence of digital media, often times people don't even understand the copyright issue because it has become common place to "share" everything digital at every turn. So much so that some media people want to share has probably changed hands so many time they would stand a chance of even finding the original artist or photographer. Plus, like was already mentioned, it could be a simple mistake or miscommunication. Is that worth suing over? If your goal is money, then maybe, but I'm my opinion that serves no purpose but to fuel constant state of litigation that wastes money and time. And can cost companies their existence or employees who may have mad a mistake their job. UNLESS they continue to refuse your wishes or to pay you even after being put on notice. Then the gloves can come off

 

[Buckster]

So really as long as you're willing to sue anyone at the drop of a hat

I'm willing to protect my copyrights with legal force, and to get paid for all the time, effort, gear and work that I've put into making the stuff others like so much that they're willing to attempt to steal and use it without paying. All that I've put into it over the years and the resulting images I make actually does mean something to me, so I rarely give it away, though I consider and act on a case by case basis, not "at the drop of a hat", as you put it.

So no, it's not about some deep greed I have where I just sue everybody "at the drop of a hat", the way you've tried to portray me. I often donate work to raise funds or awareness for cancer research or cancer survivor groups or others I want to help in some way, for example. I've spent many hours shooting, editing and printing for free for people who are down on their luck, but would like some photos of someone special in their lives.

But in general, I recognize that if people want to use my work, it means that my work has value. That being the case, I think I rightly deserve to be paid for it.

If you want to do your job for free, be my guest. I'm sure your boss will love you for it. Or maybe just give away the overtime for free. Or maybe just work 40 hours per week, but only clock 30. That's all up to you, of course.

for what may have been simple miscommunication then your attorney makes money.

Copyright infringement is not "simple miscommunication", it's theft of someone else's work, it's illegal, and anyone paying even a little attention in today's age of information knows it.

My attorney makes money because he puts in the work to make that money, just like everyone else who makes money by working.

Again, you can work for free if you want to. That's your business. But most of us, including my attorney, are keen on making a living doing what we do.

Check.

Mate.

 

[robbins.photo]

So really as long as you're willing to sue anyone at the drop of a hat

I'm willing to protect my copyrights with legal force, and to get paid for all the time, effort, gear and work that I've put into making the stuff others like so much that they're willing to attempt to steal and use it without paying. All that I've put into it over the years and the resulting images I make actually does mean something to me, so I rarely give it away, though I consider and act on a case by case basis, not "at the drop of a hat", as you put it.

So no, it's not about some deep greed I have where I just sue everybody "at the drop of a hat", the way you've tried to portray me. I often donate work to raise funds or awareness for cancer research or cancer survivor groups or others I want to help in some way, for example. I've spent many hours shooting, editing and printing for free for people who are down on their luck, but would like some photos of someone special in their lives.

But in general, I recognize that if people want to use my work, it means that my work has value. That being the case, I think I rightly deserve to be paid for it.

If you want to do your job for free, be my guest. I'm sure your boss will love you for it. Or maybe just give away the overtime for free. Or maybe just work 40 hours per week, but only clock 30. That's all up to you, of course.

for what may have been simple miscommunication then your attorney makes money.

Copyright infringement is not "simple miscommunication", it's theft of someone else's work, it's illegal, and anyone paying even a little attention in today's age of information knows it.

My attorney makes money because he puts in the work to make that money, just like everyone else who makes money by working.

Again, you can work for free if you want to. That's your business. But most of us, including my attorney, are keen on making a living doing what we do.

Check.

Mate.

Never said it was greed on your part. Merely pointing out that in this case the approach your advocating would be extraordinarily heavy handed.

Most likely the team got the picture from the player, and the player probably didn't understand that the image was copyrighted and it wasn't really his to give. So a simple email should be more than enough to straighten all that out.

Your solution, at least from what I can tell, is to immediately get an attorney involved - and as such an attorney will be getting paid. If not by you, then by the organization that violated the copyright. One way or the other the lawyer isn't doing this for free, just as you don't work for free either.

So in this case the arena football team will have to end up settling with your lawyer for at the very least his legal fees, without even being given the opportunity to do the right thing first for what was most likely just an honest mistake.

If that works for you, so be it. Doesn't really work for me. I prefer giving people the benefit of the doubt first.

 

[Buckster]

Never said it was greed on your part.

You inferred it with "you're willing to sue anyone at the drop of a hat". I'm not gonna dwell on it. Just keeping it real here.

Merely pointing out that in this case the approach your advocating would be extraordinarily heavy handed.

That's one opinion. I don't happen to share it.

The amounts in question that you deem "heavy handed" depends on the use of the infringed image(s). Yes, they can be quite large sums in some cases, but not always, nor even usual. The range of payments in negotiating these sorts of things are as little as $100 that the attorney and I split, so we each get $50 bucks. That's not "heavy-handed", IMHO. That's a little wake up call to the infringer not to do it again to me OR to anyone else. You're welcome.

Most likely the team got the picture from the player, and the player probably didn't understand that the image was copyrighted and it wasn't really his to give. So a simple email should be more than enough to straighten all that out.

These common excuses, tried by virtually everyone who ever steals any copyrighted works from music to movies to photos to anything else, are just as much BS as the guy who gets caught with a stolen bike saying, "it was just sitting there on the street, unlocked, so I figured nobody wanted it anymore. It's a simple misunderstanding."

I just don't buy into that sort of thing in today's age of information. Copyright infringement isn't some new idea that nobody's heard of. It's at the beginning of every DVD, it's on every CD case, it's been all over the news for years thanks to the efforts of the RIAA, artists who've been infringed, and soccer moms with hard drives full of copyrighted music getting sued for each and every violation. You'd have to have been in a cave for the past 20 or 30 years to not know about these issues.

Your solution, at least from what I can tell, is to immediately get an attorney involved and as such an attorney will be getting paid. If not by you, then by the organization that violated the copyright. One way or the other the lawyer isn't doing this for free, just as you don't work for free either.

So in this case the arena football team will have to end up settling with your lawyer for at the very least his legal fees, without even being given the opportunity to do the right thing first for what was most likely just an honest mistake.

So, those who infringe on artists' copyright should be given a pass if they claim they didn't know any better, and copyright attorney's shouldn't exist, because they're just in it to make money, and somebody will have to pay them.

We are in two completely different worlds, my friend.

If that works for you, so be it. Doesn't really work for me. I prefer giving people the benefit of the doubt first.

To each his own. I prefer getting paid for my work when somebody likes it enough to want to use it.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ignorance of my rights is no excuse. If they're truly that ignorant, it's time for their wake-up call, lest they continue to repeat it with me OR others, like the OP. And NOTHING wakes people up like a letter from an attorney and making them pay for the goods they already grabbed off the shelf and walked out of the store with.

 

[Buckster]

I never contact the entity violating my copyright when I find them, as it tends to weaken my attorney's negotiating position. Instead, I send copies of all relevant documents and information, such as my contract, my copyright certificate for that photo, the original photo, the infringement photo, and a link to the website page where it's being displayed to my attorney, and get paid.

I like money, and I like being paid for my work. But that's just me.

I never contact the entity violating my copyright when I find them, as it tends to weaken my attorney's negotiating position. Instead, I send copies of all relevant documents and information, such as my contract, my copyright certificate for that photo, the original photo, the infringement photo, and a link to the website page where it's being displayed to my attorney, and get paid.

I like money, and I like being paid for my work. But that's just me.

That’s all well and good, if the OP has an attorney to deal with that stuff.

I didn't have one the first time either. Guess what though? It's easy to GET ONE.

Yup.. all it takes is a big bank account. Question is, is it worth it for the OP to spend that kind of money in this situation when odds are good a simple, free email will suffice in solving the issue at hand?

Guess that's up for the OP to decide.

Actually, it doesn't take a big bank account. I pay nothing up front. I never have. Not once. My attorney gets half of whatever the settlement is, so he works to get as much for both of us as possible.

A copyright attorney worth their salt doesn't need money up front because they can look at a case and know right off the bat if it's worth taking, because it's usually pretty cut and dried. Here's how simple it is:

You are the copyright holder? Check.
You registered it with the copyright office? Check.
Somebody else used it without your permission? Check.
Letter from attorney to infringer: Pay the copyright holder this reasonable sum, or pay a LOT more if you make us take you all the way to Federal Court.

That's why they rarely ever actually go all the way to court, but get settled out of court instead, after some negotiation.

Done. Money in the bank.

Hey, if the OP wants to "solve the issue" by having them apologize, or credit him by putting his name in a caption under it, or take it down, that's his business.

But me? Yesterday another $1000.00 dropped into my PayPal account over another resolved infringement, no lie, no exaggeration. That takes me to over $5000.00 for the year so far on infringements alone.

But that's just me.

So really as long as you're willing to sue anyone at the drop of a hat

I'm willing to protect my copyrights with legal force, and to get paid for all the time, effort, gear and work that I've put into making the stuff others like so much that they're willing to attempt to steal and use it without paying. All that I've put into it over the years and the resulting images I make actually does mean something to me, so I rarely give it away, though I consider and act on a case by case basis, not "at the drop of a hat", as you put it.

So no, it's not about some deep greed I have where I just sue everybody "at the drop of a hat", the way you've tried to portray me. I often donate work to raise funds or awareness for cancer research or cancer survivor groups or others I want to help in some way, for example. I've spent many hours shooting, editing and printing for free for people who are down on their luck, but would like some photos of someone special in their lives.

But in general, I recognize that if people want to use my work, it means that my work has value. That being the case, I think I rightly deserve to be paid for it.

If you want to do your job for free, be my guest. I'm sure your boss will love you for it. Or maybe just give away the overtime for free. Or maybe just work 40 hours per week, but only clock 30. That's all up to you, of course.

for what may have been simple miscommunication then your attorney makes money.

Copyright infringement is not "simple miscommunication", it's theft of someone else's work, it's illegal, and anyone paying even a little attention in today's age of information knows it.

My attorney makes money because he puts in the work to make that money, just like everyone else who makes money by working.

Again, you can work for free if you want to. That's your business. But most of us, including my attorney, are keen on making a living doing what we do.

Check.

Mate.

ерунда

forgine the brevity, I tried to find 'self-aggrandizing bull$h1t' as some sort of cartoon but failed so I just added this in Russian.

Look, if you or anyone else wants to work for free, or to allow others to steal and use your work without them having to do anything buy say, "sorry", or maybe not even that, that's entirely your business. Put it all out there in the "Creative Commons", if you like. Give it all away, if that's your bag. What you do with your own work means nothing to me.

But just because some of us actually think we deserve to be paid for our work, and are willing to pursue that payment doesn't make it self-aggrandizing BS or wrong in any way to defend that position.

 

[robbins.photo]

You inferred it with "you're willing to sue anyone at the drop of a hat". I'm not gonna dwell on it. Just keeping it real here.

Well actually you "inferred" that from my statements. I think what you are wishing to accuse me of is implying it. I'm also curious as to why you keep wishing to make this about you, as opposed to dealing with the OP's situation.

The amounts in question that you deem "heavy handed" depends on the use of the infringed image(s). Yes, they can be quite large sums in some cases, but not always, nor even usual. The range of payments in negotiating these sorts of things are as little as $100 that the attorney and I split, so we each get $50 bucks. That's not "heavy-handed", IMHO. That's a little wake up call to the infringer not to do it again to me OR to anyone else. You're welcome.

Yes.. because I know a ton of attorney's that will bill there time at $50. Let me see.. umm.. well.. ok, none. I haven't spoken to one yet that will bill for less than an hour even if all they had to do was open an email. But hey, if you don't mind being known as the sue happy photographer willing to take anyone to court over anything, more power to you. I still don't recommend that as a good course of action for the OP to take.

I just don't buy into that sort of thing in today's age of information. Copyright infringement isn't some new idea that nobody's heard of. It's at the beginning of every DVD, it's on every CD case, it's been all over the news for years thanks to the efforts of the RIAA, artists who've been infringed, and soccer moms with hard drives full of copyrighted music getting sued for each and every violation. You'd have to have been in a cave for the past 20 or 30 years to not know about these issues.

So the team asks the kid for a photo, he gives them one off of face book, kid probably doesn't even know where photo came from because he got it from old team, probably never gave it a second thought. And you don't "buy" that?

Well I can see what the problem here is right off the bat, this poor kid has obviously led a very sheltered life and hasn't been sued a dozen times already by folks such as yourself. Thank goodness your here to clear all that up though. Our hero.

We are in two completely different worlds, my friend.

Yup. And frankly, you can keep yours.

 

[Buckster]

The amounts in question that you deem "heavy handed" depends on the use of the infringed image(s). Yes, they can be quite large sums in some cases, but not always, nor even usual. The range of payments in negotiating these sorts of things are as little as $100 that the attorney and I split, so we each get $50 bucks. That's not "heavy-handed", IMHO. That's a little wake up call to the infringer not to do it again to me OR to anyone else. You're welcome.

Yes.. because I know a ton of attorney's that will bill there time at $50. Let me see.. umm.. well.. ok, none. I haven't spoken to one yet that will bill for less than an hour even if all they had to do was open an email.

Since you obviously have ZERO experience dealing with this, while I actually deal with it quite regularly, I'm sorry to say that you have no idea what you're talking about. I used that figure of $100 because it is an actual, real amount in the spreadsheet I keep to track this stuff here.

An copyright attorney can afford to get those little fish because of the big fish he also gets. I see that you have this thing about focusing on the greed factor, but some attorneys will even work on some cases pro bono. (this is the part where you gasp and say, "NO WAY! I don't know ANY attorney who would work for such a low amount!"). Yeah, mind blown.

So, let's see. You were wrong about needing a big bank account to pay a copyright attorney big bucks up front to even go after a claim. You were wrong about how every amount is "heavy handed". And now you're wrong in claiming that no copyright attorney would work on a case that only gets him $50.

But DO continue on with all your "knowledge" of this particular subject. It's truly fascinating.

But hey, if you don't mind being known as the sue happy photographer willing to take anyone to court over anything, more power to you.

Again with the "greed-shaming" attempts. Seriously, get over it.

Sorry, but I still don't think it's wrong to be paid for my work when people think it's good enough to take it and use it, even when they try to do it without telling me or paying me up front for it. So no, I don't mind it at all.

I still don't recommend that as a good course of action for the OP to take.

I don't make recommendations, either way. I'm just telling what I and others who are quite serious about their work, their copyrights, and making a living do. The OP can make up their own mind, after seeing all the options out here. Until I chimed in, the only one they saw was from people who said send them a letter and get... what?

I just don't buy into that sort of thing in today's age of information. Copyright infringement isn't some new idea that nobody's heard of. It's at the beginning of every DVD, it's on every CD case, it's been all over the news for years thanks to the efforts of the RIAA, artists who've been infringed, and soccer moms with hard drives full of copyrighted music getting sued for each and every violation. You'd have to have been in a cave for the past 20 or 30 years to not know about these issues.

So the team asks the kid for a photo, he gives them one off of face book, kid probably doesn't even know where photo came from because he got it from old team, probably never gave it a second thought. And you don't "buy" that?

Not in today's age of information and all the news and talk about copyright infringement that's out there, no, I don't. And I think that anyone who does buy into that excuse is naive.

Well I can see what the problem here is right off the bat, this poor kid has obviously led a very sheltered life and hasn't been sued a dozen times already by folks such as yourself. Thank goodness your here to clear all that up though. Our hero.

You're welcome, and so is every infringer who finds out the hard way why they shouldn't infringe other's copyrighted works, and so is every artist who makes the copyrighted works and deserves to be paid for their efforts IF THEY WANT TO.

We are in two completely different worlds, my friend.

Yup. And frankly, you can keep yours.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're IN mine, where copyright laws actually exist, and you're just going to have to deal with it like an adult, as we all do.

 

[robbins.photo]

Since you obviously have ZERO experience dealing with this, while I actually deal with it quite regularly, I'm sorry to say that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well gee, good job on keeping it civil and not resorting to childish personal attacks. WTG. Lol

An copyright attorney can afford to get those little fish because of the big fish he also gets. I see that you have this thing about focusing on the greed factor, but some attorneys will even work on some cases pro bono. (this is the part where you gasp and say, "NO WAY! I don't know ANY attorney who would work for such a low amount!"). Yeah, mind blown.

None of which I ever stated. Beginning to really wonder who's posts your reading here. I did state that most attorneys will not bill for less than an hour, which is quite true. Your agreement with your attorney is apparently contingent on him threatening to sue anyone who violates your copyright. Which is fine, but I guess the total disconnect you seem to be experiencing is that these aren't your photo's were talking about here.

We don't know if they were indeed registered, we don't know what the agreement between the OP and the original team was, we don't know if it's in writing or a verbal contract, we don't know what was stipulated in regards to usage rights for players, in short we really don't know much of anything.

Which.. and ok, going to give this some emphasis this so hopefully you won't infer something completely off base.. yet again:

Makes the OP's situation different than the one you keep coming back to, which is your situation. Not his.

Sorry, but I still don't think it's wrong to be paid for my work when people think it's good enough to take it and use it, even when they try to do it without telling me or paying me up front for it.

Which is something I've never stated, nor implied. Again, I'm really wondering who's posts you are responding too.

 

[pixmedic]

unfortunately, photography has gone down the same path music did.
the digital age has made it easy, affordable, and accessible to pretty much everyone.
in theory, this should be good news, and from the consumer end, it is.
from the business and production end however....it has given birth to the most widespread instances of theft (yes, theft...sorry if that word offends you, but lets be honest and call it what it is) in recorded history.
Music, pictures, software...the internet is like a giant tree where people just come along and take what they want with nary a thought towards other peoples personal or intellectual rights.

and when someone cries foul, they are often chastised for having the audacity to want to protect their property.
there are always those that feel there is justification in their actions...they blame it on high prices from corporate greed, ignorance of copyright/usage laws, non-commercial usage, "inspiration", victim-less crime...and of course, there are those that simply do not care. whose sole concern is their own profit, convenience, or perhaps just apathy.

I think image, music, or software theft from someones website is no different than if they invited you to their home and you stole a picture off their wall, or a CD off their shelf. I understand that for much of it, there is little to be done, or gained, from pursuing legal action, but I applaud those that do.

 

[robbins.photo]

and when someone cries foul, they are often chastised for having the audacity to want to protect their property.
there are always those that feel there is justification in their actions...they blame it on high prices from corporate greed, ignorance of copyright/usage laws, non-commercial usage, "inspiration", victim-less crime...and of course, there are those that simply do not care. whose sole concern is their own profit, convenience, or perhaps just apathy.

I think image, music, or software theft from someones website is no different than if they invited you to their home and you stole a picture off their wall, or a CD off their shelf. I understand that for much of it, there is little to be done, or gained, from pursuing legal action, but I applaud those that do.

No disagreement here, I just think in this particular case running to an attorney and threatening to sue immediately probably isn't the best course of action. I have a feeling if the OP contacts the team in question and merely tells them, hey, that is my picture and I do own the copyright, that will solve the issue.

I have no problem with people who want to protect their copyrights, nor would I have a problem if a law suit was necessary to achieve that end. I'm just saying in this case, I doubt a lawsuit is really necessary. A simple email will most likely suffice.

 

[pixmedic]

and when someone cries foul, they are often chastised for having the audacity to want to protect their property.
there are always those that feel there is justification in their actions...they blame it on high prices from corporate greed, ignorance of copyright/usage laws, non-commercial usage, "inspiration", victim-less crime...and of course, there are those that simply do not care. whose sole concern is their own profit, convenience, or perhaps just apathy.

I think image, music, or software theft from someones website is no different than if they invited you to their home and you stole a picture off their wall, or a CD off their shelf. I understand that for much of it, there is little to be done, or gained, from pursuing legal action, but I applaud those that do.

No disagreement here, I just think in this particular case running to an attorney and threatening to sue immediately probably isn't the best course of action. I have a feeling if the OP contacts the team in question and merely tells them, hey, that is my picture and I do own the copyright, that will solve the issue.

I have no problem with people who want to protect their copyrights, nor would I have a problem if a law suit was necessary to achieve that end. I'm just saying in this case, I doubt a lawsuit is really necessary. A simple email will most likely suffice.

I always advocate honest and civil discourse as a first line approach to things like the OP's situation.
A simple treatise with the offending party might yield faster and better results than an initial threat of litigation.

 

[Buckster]

and when someone cries foul, they are often chastised for having the audacity to want to protect their property.
there are always those that feel there is justification in their actions...they blame it on high prices from corporate greed, ignorance of copyright/usage laws, non-commercial usage, "inspiration", victim-less crime...and of course, there are those that simply do not care. whose sole concern is their own profit, convenience, or perhaps just apathy.

I think image, music, or software theft from someones website is no different than if they invited you to their home and you stole a picture off their wall, or a CD off their shelf. I understand that for much of it, there is little to be done, or gained, from pursuing legal action, but I applaud those that do.

No disagreement here, I just think in this particular case running to an attorney and threatening to sue immediately probably isn't the best course of action. I have a feeling if the OP contacts the team in question and merely tells them, hey, that is my picture and I do own the copyright, that will solve the issue.

I have no problem with people who want to protect their copyrights, nor would I have a problem if a law suit was necessary to achieve that end. I'm just saying in this case, I doubt a lawsuit is really necessary. A simple email will most likely suffice.

How does it "solve the issue"? "Suffice" at what? What's the OP's goal here?

 

[robbins.photo]

I always advocate honest and civil discourse as a first line approach to things like the OP's situation.
A simple treatise with the offending party might yield faster and better results than an initial threat of litigation.

Yup.. usually does, and that's really all I was attempting to suggest. If the team fails to respond or take appropriate action, then by all means, lawyer up. Guess that's why I find some of the responses here so confusing, I'm not suggesting the op do nothing or "work for free", just saying that there is probably a better way to handle this than pulling the litigation lever right out of the gate.

 

[pixmedic]

and when someone cries foul, they are often chastised for having the audacity to want to protect their property.
there are always those that feel there is justification in their actions...they blame it on high prices from corporate greed, ignorance of copyright/usage laws, non-commercial usage, "inspiration", victim-less crime...and of course, there are those that simply do not care. whose sole concern is their own profit, convenience, or perhaps just apathy.

I think image, music, or software theft from someones website is no different than if they invited you to their home and you stole a picture off their wall, or a CD off their shelf. I understand that for much of it, there is little to be done, or gained, from pursuing legal action, but I applaud those that do.

No disagreement here, I just think in this particular case running to an attorney and threatening to sue immediately probably isn't the best course of action. I have a feeling if the OP contacts the team in question and merely tells them, hey, that is my picture and I do own the copyright, that will solve the issue.

I have no problem with people who want to protect their copyrights, nor would I have a problem if a law suit was necessary to achieve that end. I'm just saying in this case, I doubt a lawsuit is really necessary. A simple email will most likely suffice.

How does it "solve the issue"? "Suffice" at what? What's the OP's goal here?

well, that will all depend on what the OP wants.
for me, in this particular case, it would suffice for my image simply being removed from their use if they did not wish to pay me for it.
if the OP wants something different, that would have to be part of the discussion.
would I bring up litigation in the first round of negotiations? no
would I consult my lawyer and have HIM send a letter if I cannot resolve the issue on my own? yes.
I would ultimately like the lesson to be....dont steal my $#&@

 

[robbins.photo]

How does it "solve the issue"? "Suffice" at what? What's the OP's goal here?

From the initial posting the problem as stated is that the team is using his image without his authorization, and all it will likely take to get that to stop is a simple email letting them know that it is his image and that they are not supposed to be using it.

As for the OP's goal in all this, that's a question you might wish to ask the OP. If he wants photo credit or payment of some sort for the image, I'm sure he can probably work that out with the new team that's using it. If he wants them to stop using it, I'm sure they most likely will once they find out it's copyrighted. From his initial post it didn't sound like he was charging the players for using them on their facebook pages, but really that's up to the OP. It is his picture, after all.