Should I Be Upset About This?

[pixmedic]

ya know..
i never really addressed the OP's actual question.... "Should I be upset about this?"
so...here it is.

no.
you should not be upset.
i know, i know...after my whole dissertation on theft and such...but, here me out.
don't get all riled up right off the bat here.
talk to them. explain the situation, yours and theirs. then, listen to what they have to say about it, and what they feel is an equitable resolution to the situation.
if, after some discourse, you cannot come to terms with them...then you should be upset.

 

[robbins.photo]

ya know..
i never really addressed the OP's actual question.... "Should I be upset about this?"
so...here it is.

no.
you should not be upset.
i know, i know...after my whole dissertation on theft and such...but, here me out.
don't get all riled up right off the bat here.
talk to them. explain the situation, yours and theirs. then, listen to what they have to say about it, and what they feel is an equitable resolution to the situation.
if, after some discourse, you cannot come to terms with them...then you should be upset.

It all sounds so.. hauntingly familiar... .

Lol

Hey, could we get a ferret pic already? Geez.

 

[pixmedic]

 

[robbins.photo]

View attachment 107436

Ahh.. perfect. Thanks brother.

 

[pixmedic]

 

[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?

well, that will all depend on what the OP wants.

Quite right, and really, that's a key point of discussion that we all probably should have started with.

That said, I still think it's worth the OP, and anyone else interested, in knowing all the available options and reasoning out there, including mine, in order to make a truly informed decision about what to do.

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.

There's an interesting analogy that The Copyright Zone guys make regarding that. It's better the way they tell it, but basically, it's like somebody plunges a knife into you, and you yell out, "HEY! You plunged a knife into me!" So they say, "oh yeah... sorry about that" and take it out. And now it's supposedly all good?

Well, for some, it is enough, and that's fine for them. Others, like myself, see it differently, in that the violation has already occurred.

They already used it. They already profited in some way from it, and it doesn't have to directly tie to monetary profit, though it usually leads to that, if only in a roundabout way. They used it because they feel it enhances their website, at the very least. That's added value to their website. What's the result of a website that has added value? More visitors, more hits, more advertising dollars, if there are any ads on the site.

And because it's a photo of Jimmy-John, Jimmy-John's family, friends, neighbors, schoolmates and so on are likely to want to go to the website to see it, and maybe to grab a copy of it for their own use on their computers, blogs, emails, Facebook, Twitter, other social media, or whatever else they can think of. More hits, more websites, more viewers, less and less and less control of the author and copyright holder over his own work.

More visitors can and usually does mean more people interested in whatever that website promotes, and when people get interested in something like that, they want to buy merchandise to support it. So, even without selling that particular image to anyone, which can also be a factor, it can help sales of other things, and they don't even have to be for sale on or even by that website. That means that using that image can, and often, even usually, DOES make some people some money somewhere along the line.

It's dominoes. It's a chain reaction. And at the ends of all those lines of dominoes running off in different directions, spreading uncontrollably like a cancer without any control of the author and copyright holder, some of those lines end up gaining money for some folks, whether one can directly tie it to a specific photo or not - but the author and copyright holder ain't one of them.

So, even if they take it down, the first domino has already been knocked over, and the rest, going in who knows how many directions and spreading, are going down, like it or not. There's no way to reverse that. It's a done deal, whether the first fallen domino is removed or not.

But hey, just take the knife back out, and we're all good? Some of us can't be quite that forgiving.

if the OP wants something different, that would have to be part of the discussion.

Again, agreed. But I think it's important that the OP really understands the implications of letting folks off the hook with a warning; A warning that:

1 - won't provide a warning to all the other people and companies in all the other lines spreading out like a cancer from the original infringement.

2 - won't stop people in all the other lines spreading out like a cancer from the original infringement from making money with it by various means.

3 - makes infringers think that it's not really a big deal, since if they get caught they'll just have to take it down, and that's the end of it. No pain at all, especially no financial pain over it. So if you want to infringe, why worry, why care?

Again, this is something that each creative needs to decide on their own. I've got no dog in any of their fights, only my own. All I can say is, mine pays, and I guarantee you, it's teaching people, "dont steal my $#&@".

 

[NancyMoranG]

Put me down in the column of contacting them first without an attorney.

 

[robbins.photo]

Quite right, and really, that's a key point of discussion that we all probably should have started with.

Umm... most of us did.

There's an interesting analogy that The Copyright Zone guys make regarding that. It's better the way they tell it, but basically, it's like somebody plunges a knife into you, and you yell out, "HEY! You plunged a knife into me!" So they say, "oh yeah... sorry about that" and take it out. And now it's supposedly all good?

Spoken like folks who have no idea what it feels like to actually be stabbed. Once you have been you realize how incredibly silly this analogy becomes.

 

[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.

Quite right, and really, that's a key point of discussion that we all probably should have started with.

That said, I still think it's worth the OP, and anyone else interested, in knowing all the available options and reasoning out there, including mine, in order to make a truly informed decision about what to do.

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.

There's an interesting analogy that The Copyright Zone guys make regarding that. It's better the way they tell it, but basically, it's like somebody plunges a knife into you, and you yell out, "HEY! You plunged a knife into me!" So they say, "oh yeah... sorry about that" and take it out. And now it's supposedly all good?

Well, for some, it is enough, and that's fine for them. Others, like myself, see it differently, in that the violation has already occurred.

They already used it. They already profited in some way from it, and it doesn't have to directly tie to monetary profit, though it usually leads to that, if only in a roundabout way. They used it because they feel it enhances their website, at the very least. That's added value to their website. What's the result of a website that has added value? More visitors, more hits, more advertising dollars, if there are any ads on the site.

And because it's a photo of Jimmy-John, Jimmy-John's family, friends, neighbors, schoolmates and so on are likely to want to go to the website to see it, and maybe to grab a copy of it for their own use on their computers, blogs, emails, Facebook, Twitter, other social media, or whatever else they can think of. More hits, more websites, more viewers, less and less and less control of the author and copyright holder over his own work.

More visitors can and usually does mean more people interested in whatever that website promotes, and when people get interested in something like that, they want to buy merchandise to support it. So, even without selling that particular image to anyone, which can also be a factor, it can help sales of other things, and they don't even have to be for sale on or even by that website. That means that using that image can, and often, even usually, DOES make some people some money somewhere along the line.

It's dominoes. It's a chain reaction. And at the ends of all those lines of dominoes running off in different directions, spreading uncontrollably like a cancer without any control of the author and copyright holder, some of those lines end up gaining money for some folks, whether one can directly tie it to a specific photo or not - but the author and copyright holder ain't one of them.

So, even if they take it down, the first domino has already been knocked over, and the rest, going in who knows how many directions and spreading, are going down, like it or not. There's no way to reverse that. It's a done deal, whether the first fallen domino is removed or not.

But hey, just take the knife back out, and we're all good? Some of us can't be quite that forgiving.

if the OP wants something different, that would have to be part of the discussion.

Again, agreed. But I think it's important that the OP really understands the implications of letting folks off the hook with a warning; A warning that:

1 - won't provide a warning to all the other people and companies in all the other lines spreading out like a cancer from the original infringement.

2 - won't stop people in all the other lines spreading out like a cancer from the original infringement from making money with it by various means.

3 - makes infringers think that it's not really a big deal, since if they get caught they'll just have to take it down, and that's the end of it. No pain at all, especially no financial pain over it. So if you want to infringe, why worry, why care?

Again, this is something that each creative needs to decide on their own. I've got no dog in any of their fights, only my own. All I can say is, mine pays, and I guarantee you, it's teaching people, "dont steal my $#&@".

I cant speak for the OP, but for me....
part of whatever I felt the punitive damages should be would largely depend on how the offending party handled the situation.
did they become defensive and uncooperative right off the bat?
did they offer an apology and reparations? how so?
what were the actual circumstances in which they used my photo and to what degree?

not to mention, the severity of this as a "crime" is limited, and although it is certainly documented and a precedent set for damages awarded, to what degree would someone have to go to get anything?
not everyone is so fortunate as to have an attorney on retainer for things like this.
in all reality, noone outside of the OP's circle is likely to know about the outcome anyway.
I doubt anything like this is going to make the news.

not to sound like i am trying in any way to justify letting them off the hook, but...
former lawsuits and monetary awards have not, thus far, seemed to sway anyone from image/software/music theft, so I dont really think using it as a "scare tactic" is a very compelling reason to do it.

since you seem intent to follow through on pursuing monetary damages from something like this, and seeing as how I have no actual experience with photographic property theft, what sort of compensation would you be demanding from them if you were in the OP's position? and what would it actually take to get it from them if they choose to fight?

 

[robbins.photo]

I cant speak for the OP, but for me....
part of whatever I felt the punitive damages should be would largely depend on how the offending party handled the situation.
did they become defensive and uncooperative right off the bat?
did they offer an apology and reparations? how so?
what were the actual circumstances in which they used my photo and to what degree?

This is part of my thought process, the other part too is how did they end up with the photo in the first place? If they came to my website and took the photo and used it without permission, that's a very different situation from being given the photo by a third party that probably didn't realize he didn't have the right to do so in the first place.

 

[pixmedic]

man...
come one guys...
I was actually learning some stuff here, and now the reported posts are coming in...
so instead of being enlightened a little on how this copyright infringement **** works in the real world, I have to play moderator.
do i need to lock the thread or can I just clean things up a bit and continue learning?

 

[JacaRanda]

Put me down in the column of contacting them first without an attorney.

Me too except: If I have spent years and dollars learning the craft or art of photography, and I see how often people tell us "don't quit your day job, you can't earn much without..., it's too hard, times have changed, etc. etc." in order to earn money, I may adopt Buckster's approach and lawyer up also - particularly if the infringement happens to me more than once.

 

[pixmedic]

Ferret is not amused.

 

[baturn]

You folks do realize that the OP gave up on this before the end of the first page and is probably writing pms to all of you thanking you for your concern.

 

[JacaRanda]

man...
come one guys...
I was actually learning some stuff here, and now the reported posts are coming in...
so instead of being enlightened a little on how this copyright infringement **** works in the real world, I have to play moderator.
do i need to lock the thread or can I just clean things up a bit and continue learning?

I agree, I am learning something here. Letting a lawyer do some of the reaching out work does not indicate necessarily, that a person is being unreasonable. In fact, it may nip a situation in the bud quicker and amicably.