Wife's Birthday Project: Needing PS Help...

Status
Not open for further replies.
MLeeK said:
This isn't the PENAL system here. Quite obviously your lawyer sucks. Any copyright laywer worth his salt would have insured that the case be heard AND that the law be heard AND when the judge was too lazy to hear the case and dismissed it, would have filed beyond that. Copyright cases are heard every day. For ONE image. ONE. That's it.

Right, my lawyer sucks. That's why he's gotten me out of so many situations I could have served HARD time for, because he sucks.

You can believe what you want, but what I'm saying is real, and it happens every single day. If you honestly think that your image is worth a $1500+ lawyer and court fees so that the defendant has to pay you $250-500 for "altering your work" and get a slap on the hand, I'd have to say I question your logical decision making skills.

Like I said before. I'm not saying that it's ok to do it. However, I am saying that most of the time, you're going to find that the lawyer wants to send them a "please stop" letter before ever taking something like this to court.
 
MLeeK said:
This isn't the PENAL system here. Quite obviously your lawyer sucks. Any copyright laywer worth his salt would have insured that the case be heard AND that the law be heard AND when the judge was too lazy to hear the case and dismissed it, would have filed beyond that. Copyright cases are heard every day. For ONE image. ONE. That's it.

Right, my lawyer sucks. That's why he's gotten me out of so many situations I could have served HARD time for, because he sucks.

You can believe what you want, but what I'm saying is real, and it happens every single day. If you honestly think that your image is worth a $1500+ lawyer and court fees so that the defendant has to pay you $250-500 for "altering your work" and get a slap on the hand, I'd have to say I question your logical decision making skills.

Like I said before. I'm not saying that it's ok to do it. However, I am saying that most of the time, you're going to find that the lawyer wants to send them a "please stop" letter before ever taking something like this to court.

Aaron, you may want to read the copyright laws and what the fees are for willful violation. If it's a registered image those fees PLUS attorney fees.
 
MLeeK said:
This isn't the PENAL system here. Quite obviously your lawyer sucks. Any copyright laywer worth his salt would have insured that the case be heard AND that the law be heard AND when the judge was too lazy to hear the case and dismissed it, would have filed beyond that. Copyright cases are heard every day. For ONE image. ONE. That's it.

Right, my lawyer sucks. That's why he's gotten me out of so many situations I could have served HARD time for, because he sucks.

You can believe what you want, but what I'm saying is real, and it happens every single day. If you honestly think that your image is worth a $1500+ lawyer and court fees so that the defendant has to pay you $250-500 for "altering your work" and get a slap on the hand, I'd have to say I question your logical decision making skills.

Like I said before. I'm not saying that it's ok to do it. However, I am saying that most of the time, you're going to find that the lawyer wants to send them a "please stop" letter before ever taking something like this to court.

Aaron, you may want to read the copyright laws and what the fees are for willful violation. If it's a registered image those fees PLUS attorney fees.


I know that number can go up very high, I'm just saying on the average photographer's image what would typically be found legible to be awarded. even with Lawyer's fees having to be included, you're still about broke even and out of a bunch of time.

There is also something in the copyright laws known as the "Take down/put back provision," have you ever heard about this? Basically if someone takes your work willingly, or alters it and posts it somewhere else, they have the option to take it down willingly per letter from you or attorney, before any legal action can be taken.

Once again, a simple slap on the hand. This is copyright law, not murder.

Although unethical, there are many ways of getting around such penalties that you speak of.

I have to keep saying this, because I want you to especially realize that Iam not saying that any of this is alright to do. I'm simply telling you that along with Peano, I think everyone on the board here takes it a little bit too seriously. I'm not saying that you don't have a right to take it so seriously, because you do. However, it's quite comical to me, because I couldn't care less.

Once a client pays for a shoot and my photographs, I could care less if I ever see them again, as I already achieved what I wanted out of them. If the owner wants to tear it alive and make a desktop wallpaper out of it, more power to him. He paid me $160.00 to take the picture, that's all I care about.
 
I notice that the poster who was the most vocal advocate of, "Who cares, it doesn't matter.." also never answered my question on what his thought would be if someone took his work and editied in whatever way they felt like. I'm guessing he or she might not be too happy.

You're guessing wrong. Speaking of ethics, you're rather free with using quotation marks to attribute a position to someone who didn't use those words. Is that okay in your system of ethics? It isn't in mine.

This is the same sort of attitude seen frequently in the lowlifes that think downloading software off of torrent 'sites and similar is okay...

There's a substantive difference between a minor alteration on a photo that was given (not sold) to someone for his personal use, and stealing music that was produced to be sold.

MLeeK in another post dismisses the de minimis principle by simply asserting: "All you have to do is file suit. Period. The judge has to hear the case." And if a judge dismisses a lawsuit on de minimis grounds, MLeek declares him to be "too lazy."

A judge doesn't dismiss a case on his own. He does so on a motion to dismiss from one party, usually the defendant. Moreover, the motion must be justified by some law or precedent or recognized legal principle. A case cannot be dismissed simply because a judge is "too lazy" to hear it.

You folks are entitled to your opinions, even ill-informed opinions. But you're not entitled to invent facts.
 
You're guessing wrong.
In that case I apologize; I don't think I've ever met a photographer who didn't care what someone else did with their work, but if you don't that's fine.

Speaking of ethics, you're rather free with using quotation marks to attribute a position to someone who didn't use those words. Is that okay in your system of ethics? It isn't in mine.
Fair enough; could you please define your position then? My understanding from this:
If I were you, I'd take all the copyright warnings on this forum with a grain of salt. Lots of Barney Fifes here, if you know what I mean.
and this:
That's pure Barney Fife. "Screw over" the photographer? How on earth would cloning out a rope "screw over" the photographer? How much money or business or reputation would he lose as a result? Phooey. The job has already been done. At no charge. Get over it.
was that you didn't really have any regard for the photographer and any artistic vision he may have had for the image. If that's not correct, could you please clarify?

There's a substantive difference between a minor alteration on a photo that was given (not sold) to someone for his personal use, and stealing music that was produced to be sold.
Really? How? Copyright law applies equally to both as far as I am aware.

You folks are entitled to your opinions, even ill-informed opinions. But you're not entitled to invent facts.
I may have missed the post to which you refer; what facts do you allege were invented? I'm also curious as to why you state that certain opinions were ill-informed, yet you seem to state that copyright violation is okay.
 
Speaking of ethics, you're rather free with using quotation marks to attribute a position to someone who didn't use those words. Is that okay in your system of ethics? It isn't in mine.
Fair enough; could you please define your position then?
No. "Fair enough" is good enough for me.



There's a substantive difference between a minor alteration on a photo that was given (not sold) to someone for his personal use, and stealing music that was produced to be sold.
Really? How?
One is theft, the other isn't.



You folks are entitled to your opinions, even ill-informed opinions. But you're not entitled to invent facts.
I may have missed the post to which you refer; what facts do you allege were invented?
Here are two that you yourself invented:
How much of anything he would lose is irelevant.... Editing the image without authority is breaking the law.
Fact: de minimis rulings have been based on the amount of a claimed loss. You invented the irrelevance of the amount of loss.
Fact: A law is broken when a court so rules. You aren't a judge and this forum isn't a court. You invented the violation of law (more below).


I'm also curious as to why you state that certain opinions were ill-informed, yet you seem to state that copyright violation is okay.
Irony alert: Your opinion that I "seem to state that copyright violation is okay" is ill-informed.

A "copyright violation" occurs only when a court rules that it has occurred. You and others in this thread ignore the bedrock legal (and moral) principle of "presumption of innocence." You flatly declare actions to be in violation of a law, rolling right over that presumption and assigning yourselves the status of judge and jury.



If you have any further questions or challenges for me on this issue, you needn't post them, because I won't respond.
 
How about we just shut this post down and not have this debate? It's something that is a very heated topic and no good will come of it.
 
MLeeK said:
How about we just shut this post down and not have this debate? It's something that is a very heated topic and no good will come of it.

Amen..
Amusing, but not productive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions

Back
Top