Let's talk theft of images...

[MTVision]

Yeah, you're probably right. Unless Facebook supports IP detection, which I would think they would. If they do, no fan page can be made as it won't pass through their servers. But now he'll or they'll know not to use or even think about using images he or they find on google or wherever. I like the comment by IByte too, I agree, should never have done it, but we have to understand so many people, and ironically photographers, dont realize the value and legalities of copyright and such. People save pictures they find online all day, everyday, and email them, post to facebook because it's 'funny' or whatever the case may be. The watermark issue, IDK, that one is above me, but we don't know if he was trying to claim it as his or their own work, although it does look like it, but that's off assumption and this always is a deadend. If this guy is broke like I've read in other forums, it's a deadend, and we have to just keep vigilant eyes on the industry as a whole.

People save pictures they find online all day, everyday, and email them, post to facebook because it's 'funny' or whatever the case may be

^^^^ this may still be technically wrong but it's completely different then what this guy did. Obviously he was claiming the work as his own - it had his watermark, it was in his portfolio mixed in with his own work....

 

[mjhoward]

Hi Megan, what I see, personally, and a few of us here in the office, that this guy was an arrogant ass, but within 2 days, realized he f'd up, and took action by taking images down and gave a public announcement of his wrong doing.

No... within 2 days he realized that people weren't as gullible and stupid as he had hoped so he had no choice but to concede. If everyone said "Oooh, they stole from him. Guess we'll leave him alone now", do you really think if everything immediately died down after that he would have came back a couple days later and admitted to everything and apologized?? Hell no!

This isn't anyone I support, but he did take action. Also, how do we know he profited anything, reading a few other site forums, sounds like he or they didn't even perform any photo shoots, as they were new.

I would hardly think that a business that is nearly 2 years old would be considered "new" enough not to have had at least a couple of clients: http://dor.wa.gov/images/BRDImage.aspx?tra=7nW2tlK+X8a3OPzA9yfDFk7sCZRUQfzy&rsp=

 

[IByte]

Yeah, you're probably right. Unless Facebook supports IP detection, which I would think they would. If they do, no fan page can be made as it won't pass through their servers. But now he'll or they'll know not to use or even think about using images he or they find on google or wherever. I like the comment by IByte too, I agree, should never have done it, but we have to understand so many people, and ironically photographers, dont realize the value and legalities of copyright and such. People save pictures they find online all day, everyday, and email them, post to facebook because it's 'funny' or whatever the case may be. The watermark issue, IDK, that one is above me, but we don't know if he was trying to claim it as his or their own work, although it does look like it, but that's off assumption and this always is a deadend. If this guy is broke li I've read in other forums, it's a deadend, and we have to just keep vigilant eyes on the industry as a whole.

People may save images to recreate them fine, trying to sell yourself with other people's work I'd throw book at them.

 

[MLeeK]

I'm with you Rexbobcat. That guy knows he did wrong, you can see it in his messages on that 'stopstealing' post. I reread that 'stopstealing' post over and over, I didn't read it like Rotanimod did. Doesn't say he's 'suing' anyone. Guy was trying to fix his wrong doings, and said he was going to file for a court order for having that stuff removed. Also, my girlfriend Samantha read it with me, and we're confused where it says others stole from him...never saw anything about that, but can see how someone could read it like that though. Maybe it was his arrogance? IDK. What I know is the guy seems sorry, or as Rotanimod says "weeeeally sorry" (cute), and appears or at least appeared to try and make things as best he could by repenting and taking images off. That's how I read it at least and it's what my gut tells me. Steve5D is also right, you can't squeeze blood out of a stone. Gary Fong is great, but to encourage idea to try and bleed someone after watching videos he's made is so contradictory I'm a bit taken back. I agree the guy is an ass, results to image removal took a day longer than hoped for, but mission accomplished, he took them off, he's having to deal without his page anymore on facebook etc. which as you know is king at sharing work.

I think you missed the sarcasm there...

Having to deal without a facebook. WAAH. He can use any email and just start a new facebook. Pretty simple. No big loss there!

Yeah, you're probably right. Unless Facebook supports IP detection, which I would think they would. If they do, no fan page can be made as it won't pass through their servers. But now he'll or they'll know not to use or even think about using images he or they find on google or wherever. I like the comment by IByte too, I agree, should never have done it, but we have to understand so many people, and ironically photographers, dont realize the value and legalities of copyright and such. People save pictures they find online all day, everyday, and email them, post to facebook because it's 'funny' or whatever the case may be. The watermark issue, IDK, that one is above me, but we don't know if he was trying to claim it as his or their own work, although it does look like it, but that's off assumption and this always is a deadend. If this guy is broke like I've read in other forums, it's a deadend, and we have to just keep vigilant eyes on the industry as a whole.

WE DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS TRYING TO CLAIM THEM AS HIS OWN???? REALLY? First they are in HIS portfolio section of HIS website. Not in something that says "photographers we admire"
Second He REMOVED someone watermark and replaced it with his own. Last I knew there was no "remove watermark" preset for Lightroom. That took conscious effort to remove.

Pull you head out of the sand.

 

[StillCapture]

Jamesbjenkins, you'd be spinning your wheels and money on a deadend. Nothing else to say about that. We have to remember, invest in your craft, not chasing someone that made things right after being beaten ahaha. I'm all about protecting one's own property most certainly, but this isn't a car, not house theft. It was someone that went online, found pictures they liked, displayed them, and then was an arrogant ass at first when told to remove them. Copyright and/or trademark violation is a civil case, it is fines only, and the fines are ONLY if the party has the capital. This is a photographer that is small time, probably just out of school, or just bought a camera and portrayed to be doing good when in fact they were just like most photographers, counting beans. Mleek, I'm not too keen on how IP detection works, but I've been under the impression that if 1 account was terminated that used an in common with other accounts IP address, they'd all be shut down. Good chance I'm wrong as I don't know this, just what I've been under the impression of.

 

[MLeeK]

That would be pretty tough seeing how there are so many who are using library computers or logging on in cafe's which give different IP's...

 

[MTVision]

Jamesbjenkins, you'd be spinning your wheels and money on a deadend. Nothing else to say about that. We have to remember, invest in your craft, not chasing someone that made things right after being beaten ahaha. I'm all about protecting one's own property most certainly, but this isn't a car, not house theft. It was someone that went online, found pictures they liked, displayed them, and then was an arrogant ass at first when told to remove them. Copyright and/or trademark violation is a civil case, it is fines only, and the fines are ONLY if the party has the capital. This is a photographer that is small time, probably just out of school, or just bought a camera and portrayed to be doing good when in fact they were just like most photographers, counting beans. Mleek, I'm not too keen on how IP detection works, but I've been under the impression that if 1 account was terminated that used an in common with other accounts IP address, they'd all be shut down. Good chance I'm wrong as I don't know this, just what I've been under the impression of.

I'm not 100% sure I believe that fines are only if the party has the capital. That'd be nice if te world ran that way but I highly doubt it.

Also - do you realize that you can also sue? In small claims court if you sue you aren't guaranteed the money but there are steps you can take such as putting a lien on your property or - get this - you can even get a court order to garnish someone's wages.

And I'm sorry but stealing is stealing. Just because it wasn't physical property doesn't make it less wrong. And maybe to you it's not a big deal but I'm sure it is to the people who were stolen from.

He made things right after being beaten?? LOL

I believe he said "Thank you to all the haters.....you got us 60 fans in 24 hours. Please keep talking trash like the garbage man....calling us "thieves" of images....it helps and we love the publicity."

Sounds like he was beaten and abused huh? more like he got caught and wasn't man enough to admit it.

Stealing is stealing is stealing.

 

[Steve5D]

I know I'm late to the party on this one, but all I can is if he stole my work and was displaying it in his portfolio as his own work, I go after him with extreme prejudice. $150,000 per image, for every image.

I hope these other photogs take the same approach.

And how much are you willing to spend for whatever the minimal return you'll realize would be?

Because odds are that Dude's not kicking around with $150 large to pay you with...

 

[StillCapture]

Steve5D is right on the money! @MJHoward, I'm not seeing what you're seeing...and I'm in the database (I work here at the SanFran Licensing Dept., we have access to the entire US database). He/she/they licensed just 4 months ago (April, 2012). This topic is over with. I understand and respect MLeeks thoughts on all this, good points, but this topic is blown far out of proportion. People are talking about small claims court...you cannot file small claims court for a copyright/trademark topic. It's a fact. Ask any attorney that currently practices law. Out of curiousity, I just did a google search, and found 1000's and 1000's of images for wedding and others. 99% are unwatermarked . I even came by 3 I seen them use. Point is, they f'd up, and I'd bet my level 7 paycheck they learned a lesson better than any community service or fine would teach.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

And how much are you willing to spend for whatever the minimal return you'll realize would be?

Because odds are that Dude's not kicking around with $150 large to pay you with...

If the guy's a photographer, then the minimum I would get is whatever ALL of his gear is worth. He's not a full-timer so the "livelihood" argument is void. The cost for retaining counsel long enough to scare the crap out of him and get a good settlement would completely be worth it. That's if I decided to be kind enough to not go for the throat with max damages.

Seriously Steve, you seem like a pretty resourceful guy. Shouldn't be too hard for you to figure out.

 

[mjhoward]

Steve5D is right on the money! @MJHoward, I'm not seeing what you're seeing...and I'm in the database (I work here at the SanFran Licensing Dept., we have access to the entire US database). He/she/they licensed just 4 months ago (April, 2012). This topic is over with. I understand and respect MLeeks thoughts on all this, good points, but this topic is blown far out of proportion. People are talking about small claims court...you cannot file small claims court for a copyright/trademark topic. It's a fact. Ask any attorney that currently practices law. Out of curiousity, I just did a google search, and found 1000's and 1000's of images for wedding and others. 99% are unwatermarked . I even came by 3 I seen them use. Point is, they f'd up, and I'd bet my level 7 paycheck they learned a lesson better than any community service or fine would teach.

All you have to do is click the link, it is their business registration information through Washington state secretary. Their BUSINESS, not their website, was registered 1/1/2011. You're looking in the wrong place fool. Just so we're all clear... you joined this forum (and based on a previous comment, other forums) to comment on this thread to DEFEND a thief and a low life and then, when it becomes clear that everyone isn't going to jump on your bullsh!t bandwagon, you declare that the thread is now over?! AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA! You really were born yesterday. I just gotta say StillCapture AKA "Benjamin Ramalho", you are screwed! Even if you don't get sued, your integrity and reputation are ruined.

 

[IByte]

And how much are you willing to spend for whatever the minimal return you'll realize would be?

Because odds are that Dude's not kicking around with $150 large to pay you with...

But if he goes bankrupt will send a nice friendly reminder not to steal peoples hard work.

 

[StillCapture]

I'm being called a guy again? This is so bizarre. It's not about standing up for anyone. Forums are for expression, freedom of thoughts, opinions and such. Not sure how me not seeing it like mjhoward makes me a guy, let alone the guy he's talking about. Interesting way of thinking I suppose? Back to topic at hand, which really is yesterdays news, for any legal counsel to be retained would cost more than anyone would get in return, if anything were issued by the courts at all. Williams case from 2011 resulted in community service (was taken to court for fines, none issued). Williams case was for 10x the pictures, 100x the arrogance, 1000x more hated. Look on the map, I'm next door to SanFran's county courts, and blocks from the Federal Court. We hear cases all day, everyday. I'm no attorney, but something like this, would be a waste of money and most preciously, time. This guy appears to not even be able to pay for a decent site. Seriously, are you guys seeing something the rest of us are not? He advertised on craigslist (free), no search engines. This guy, guys, gal, gals, are broke. Probably still has dial up connection ahahaha.

Everyone has an opinion, but if we slow down and really look at the picture, this topic and s/he/they are out of biz. Back to the unemployment line ahahahahaha.

 

[Steve5D]

And how much are you willing to spend for whatever the minimal return you'll realize would be?

Because odds are that Dude's not kicking around with $150 large to pay you with...

If the guy's a photographer, then the minimum I would get is whatever ALL of his gear is worth. He's not a full-timer so the "livelihood" argument is void. The cost for retaining counsel long enough to scare the crap out of him and get a good settlement would completely be worth it. That's if I decided to be kind enough to not go for the throat with max damages.

Seriously Steve, you seem like a pretty resourceful guy. Shouldn't be too hard for you to figure out.

I am.

And I'm also smart enough to realize when something is a waste of time and money. Suing the guy for $150,000.00, for every violation, is a complete and utter waste of time. Have you seen the number of shots he claims ownership to? How many millions of dollars does that add up to?

Suing his to make a point is fine, I suppose, if you have some unwavering need to make a point and "win", but you're going to spend quite a bit of money doing that and, oh, guess what? You won't recover that, either and, even if you got what all his gear is worth, it won't make a dent. I also don't know what gives you the idea the guy is a working photographer. Truth be told, all I see is him working at stealing other people's photos.

Scaring him? Whooooo... yeah, this is a guy who's laid claim to a picture taken on the moon. You're not gonna' shake him up to much, because he really doesn't care. He'll thumb his nose at you, and you wanna' know why? Because he knows you'll never see the money from a lawsuit if you win, and he's probably got spare little to "settle" with. Max damages?? You want to "go for the throat and go for max damages"? Please explain how that's going to benefit you.

YOU WON'T GET A DIME.

I'm not defending the guy at all. I'm merely pointing out the fruitless result of any action against him.

He's exposed. He's a laughing stock.

That's as much as you're likely to ever get...

 

[Steve5D]

But if he goes bankrupt will send a nice friendly reminder not to steal peoples hard work.

Hell, these days, bankruptcy is commonplace. I'm sure, even if there was a chance it would happen, it wouldn't bother him.

In fact, if he claims bankruptcy, all these people who want to "go for the throat" won't get a dime.

Good thinkin'...