Law Firm Finds Success Targeting Those Who Post Copyrighted

Seems to me that if you credit the source of the picture and you aren't making money off the post, than you are no different than a student writing a paper and footnoting copyrighted material. Most newspapers have a part on their website that says what constitute authorized use of their material.

If you post someone else's picture and you are making money off your website, that is a different story.
 
DoryLvr":6ww3jy94 said:
Seems to me that if you credit the source of the picture and you aren't making money off the post, than you are no different than a student writing a paper and footnoting copyrighted material. Most newspapers have a part on their website that says what constitute authorized use of their material.

If you post someone else's picture and you are making money off your website, that is a different story.
Click to expand...

It is less about making money and more about maintaining control of one's property; in this case: an image. If you take someone's image without authorization, the creator of that image no longer has control on how that image is being used. We dealt with this on a daily basis during my 30+ year career as a professional photographer. The world has changed - it is easy to "grab" an image and many people do it. People made the same argument with people trading "free" music on Napster... and a lot of people getting "free" music were successfully sued by the music publishing industry. It is theft of intellectual property.

Allow me to bring this to a boating situation. Your boat is sitting out at anchor. People can admire how pretty your boat is, sitting out there in all its beautiful glory. You get in your dinghy and head out to your boat. When you get there, you find 3 guys fishing in the cockpit your boat, two kids wresting out on the bow, and granny sitting on top, sunning herself.

Would you tell these people to get off your boat?

What if their response were: "Hey, it was out here for everyone to enjoy, so we are enjoying it. We didn't make any money off this, so it's OK. Besides, look at the other boats at anchor - all our cousins and their friends are sitting on all those boats, too... everybody's doing it, so it must be OK!"

The solution is simple (your parents taught you this when you were a kid): if it ain't yours, don't take it.

Don't blame the lawyers. Making money from people who want/need legal representation is what they do for a living. What they're doing is not illegal; what the person who took the image without permission did is illegal. It's not the same as a kid footnoting a source... oh, and the reason you were taught to footnote when you were a kid was to teach you that you can't just "take" someone else's writing (also intellectual property). You are NOT entitled to copy someone's entire book and put a footnote at the end of it, and then call it your work. Or reproduce it in any manner without the permission of the author/publisher.

Some may recall that "grabbing" others' images and reposting them has been discussed here in the past. I may have made mention that someone would be brought to task over it, and certainly stated that it isn't right... or legal. So, this is the next step. "Take" something that doesn't belong to you, and you may get to meet these lawyers. That doesn't make them (the lawyers) the bad guys in this scenerio.

In conclusion, Your Honor and members of the jury, allow me to point out the above words that are bold and italicized. We rest our case.

Jim B.

PS I talked to Bubba and his friends who were on your boat... they said, "Tell that Mister C-Dory guy that we're giving him 'credit' - we told all our friends, cousins, and neighbors how nice it is to sit out on his boat. They can't wait to do it, too!"

:roll:

On more than one occasion when we had caught copyright infringers, their defense was, "You're just a money grubber." Interestingly enough, I never asked any of them for money (although there was generally a discussion of what the fines would be) - I simply didn't want someone taking my intellectual property and perhaps using it in a way that could be injurious to my reputation. If you recall the discussion about Triton making brochures for owners to hand out to interested folks, someone brought up the idea of printing it on their home inkjet printer. That made me cringe. Something printed on a home printer may be gawd-awful color and image quality... NOT what any company wants to project as their image. While any "taking" of property may be a monetary lost for the owner of that property, it is hard to put a price on one's reputation and the representation of their work... "giving the photographer credit" when the image is badly reproduced is the last thing a professional wants. This isn't Nike - just DON'T do it.
 
That's all well and good, Jim, but the way I read the story these guys are claiming rights to images that never belonged to them in the first place and then extorting people who had already used the previously free image knowing that most will settle. So they are disgusting money grubbers and a big part of all that is wrong in the world. Sooner or later someone with the means to go through the court process will shut them down. The patent and copyright laws exist to satisfy the constitutional requirement to promote the arts but in no way limit or lessen other rights.

My understanding of copyright rules is limited but I did do some research into it in years past. I seem to recall that an image or other "art" shared publically is public unless claimed by the author or artist. Simply adding the copyright notice to something only signifies intent to register it. Unless the art is actually registered with the Library of Congress the legal claim isn't all that strong. That's why the weasels in the article are able to claim things that aren't theirs. Once they register the copyright it is theirs. They are no better than the drivers who purposely slam on the brakes in front of you so they can sue your insurance. I hope important parts of their anatomy fall off.
 
That's all well and good, Jim, but the way I read the story these guys are claiming rights to images that never belonged to them in the first place and then extorting people who had already used the previously free image knowing that most will settle. So they are disgusting money grubbers and a big part of all that is wrong in the world.
Click to expand...

This was my impression too, from reading the article. I've seen similar money making practices from The Mafia/La Cosa Nostra. JMO and why some (not all) attorneys have despicable reputations.
 
Mike-

Great post!

Thanks for sharing your research on the topic.

I was a Political Science major in a former life, and you could tell which ones of the Pre-Law guys and gals were going to be the money-chasers as distinguished from those seeking an honest living like our fine friend Pat Anderson!

Joe. :teeth :thup
 
Claiming rights to images that don't belong to you IS infringement. The way I read that article is: those bringing suit bought all the rights to the images. Ownership of a particular image is pretty easy to establish (not as easy as the good ol' days of film). An article written about use of an image can slant the intent either way. Regardless of who "takes" an image, if it isn't YOURS, it's wrong. If you buy all the rights to the image, that includes being able to use all legal means to protect the rights.

My professional association (yes, even retired, I am a life member) has successfully brought about lawsuits for their members. I can go so far as to say that it might have even been encouraged. It can be a profitable endeavor. The solution remains simple: if it isn't yours, don't take it.

An image does not have to have "©" on it to be protected. If you create the image, you own it. Want to establish ownership for a court case, register it.

Sorry, I cannot go along with the prevalent thought of: if it's out there, I should be able to take it.

The idea here isn't far from the ONE RULE on this forum: be nice. I know there are people who think I'm off base on this issue. I lived it for a lot of years. Now retired, I'm not so adamant about the problem; but I am certainly glad to be out of the professional imaging business because of the attitude of the great majority of people out there. I may be lighting one candle in the darkness, but the opinions of those who think it's acceptable to take something that isn't theirs will never make me compromise my principles.

The details of "when it's copyrighted" can be debated endlessly (and often seems to be)... and that's when the lawyers profit from this. You may not like what the people in the article are doing, but they are simply willing to pursue the ownership further than the original image creator.

It's only "easier to settle" if the image isn't yours. Lawyers on either side wouldn't be necessary.

I am probably less upset about this than these words appear. Since I don't have to defend my work anymore, I tend to just shrug my shoulders about this issue these days, most of the time. But, that doesn't mean I will join the ranks of those who think it's OK to take something that isn't theirs.

The solution to this problem is easy.

Best wishes,
Jim
 
Want another boating example? (probably not :roll: ) It was MY boat, and I didn't object to Bubba, his cousins, their kids, and granny climbing all over my boat. Oh, I didn't like it, but it was just too much trouble to do anything about it. Now, I sold my boat to YOU. You have the right to force the squatters off that boat.

Who's the bad guy(s) in the scenerio above? Bubba and his crew think it's YOU. You think it's them. I sold the boat and don't have to deal with any of this crap. Bubba can call the police or hire an attorney. The whole thing can get UGLY. It can get into everyone's pocket.

The simple thing... and the RIGHT thing, would have been for Bubba and crew to not "take/use/grab/swipe/borrow/glom-onto/fill in the blank for the words you prefer to use", in the first place. Once the rightful ownership changes, you have the right to protect what you own. You might not like the tactics, but that doesn't change the rules.

This might be a good time to mention: if it ain't yours, don't take it. Oh, and don't marry into Bubba's family... you'll have more problems than who owns what image. :wink:

Knowing that I will probably not change anyone's opinion here, I will just go enjoy this beautiful day. See ya!

Best wishes,
Jim
 
Oh, I get it. None of the pictures of Egypt's revolution should be shared with the world because some lawyers copyrighted all images from Egypt. Maybe Mubarak would still be president otherwise. "Family Values" Republican Congressman Chris Lee shouldn't have had to resign either because the shirtless picture he took of himself and posted on Craigslist trolling for a girlfriend, was his picture and not meant for the rest of the nation to see. The internet is changing the the way the world works because of the free exchange of information. If you don't want your picture or information reproduced, DON'T PUT IT ON THE INTERNET. It's just that simple.
 
Good debate, with both sides rooted in honor and principle as they see it. Had me with little to no knowledge of the subject spinning like a top.

Jay
 
I'm not saying it's ok to steal pictures, I am emphasizing my belief that these people, if accurately described in the article, are bigger jerks than the guy who forwarded the email or even the guy who used the image in a commercial blog. There is a good chance they already lost some body parts and that's how they're capable of doing the legal but immoral crap they do. Reminds me of the SeaTow guy who took over control of the yacht from the fire boat that was saving it. He then claimed the yacht was in peril and wanted millions in salvage rights to give it back to the owner.

There is a huge difference between legal and ethical. These guys, and again if the article is accurate, are doing absolutely nothing to further the virtues that the good guys are rightfully trying to protect. There is much more harm than good and those guys belong somewhere between Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay.

I'm surprised I'm getting so worked up over this. I don't have that strong of an opinion on the subject.
 
forrest":3e8spxli said:
Oh, I get it. None of the pictures of Egypt's revolution should be shared with the world because some lawyers copyrighted all images from Egypt. Maybe Mubarak would still be president otherwise. "Family Values" Republican Congressman Chris Lee shouldn't have had to resign either because the shirtless picture he took of himself and posted on Craigslist trolling for a girlfriend, was his picture and not meant for the rest of the nation to see. The internet is changing the the way the world works because of the free exchange of information. If you don't want your picture or information reproduced, DON'T PUT IT ON THE INTERNET. It's just that simple.
Click to expand...

Well, there's no doubt that you and I will disagree on this issue, but I trust we can do that without being disagreeable. Leaving lawyers out of this for a moment, you can be sure that the images from Egypt being disseminated through the news agencies ARE copyrighted. I'm certainly NOT saying that images cannot or should not be reproduced... Just don't take what isn't yours without permission.

Now, regarding the sleaze bag Congressman, that's a whole different kind of wrong.

We can assign different levels of wrong in many circumstances, but it keeps coming back to the one rule here... And, while "sharing" is good, taking something that doesn't belong to you to share still isn't nice.

I got a forwarded message from my buddy, Moses, the other day... he said "Thou shall not steal" has not been replaced by "Thou shall not sue."

:mrgreen:

That's a joke. No need to send me nasty PMs. I'm just not that worked up over this, and I'm not the Nice Police. Everyone has their own ethics. I find it interesting that if a boat gets broken into, we all think the thief should be strung up... but, steal an image and that's OK because it's the internet.

Out and about with my iPad. 8) Can't surf with the chart plotter.

Best wishes,
Jim B.
 
Yes Jim, after all the news organizations including Al Jazeera were kicked out of Egypt by Mubarak, all the tweeted images by Egyptian citizens were copyrighted. Nobody saw any pictures on any blogs. There really wasn't any civil unrest. Move along citizen, nothing is going on here.
 
forrest":2viw8hhc said:
Yes Jim, after all the news organizations including Al Jazeera were kicked out of Egypt by Mubarak, all the tweeted images by Egyptian citizens were copyrighted. Nobody saw any pictures on any blogs. There really wasn't any civil unrest. Move along citizen, nothing is going on here.
Click to expand...

Easy there, big fella. I couldn't tell you what was copyrighted from the Egyptian citizens. It would be easy enough to simply state "no rights reserved - post this to the whole world" with any photo.

I've seen people on this forum state that people are welcome to use their photos for different projects.

Having had a private word with you, I know if I say "Up," you will say, "Down." Try not to confuse your dislike of me with the topic at hand. I am not aware of any "Internet Clause" that entitles anyone to take something that doesn't belong to them. And, I'm pretty sure my views on this topic didn't have any bearing on the situation in Egypt. We seem to have strayed off topic and are probably skirting getting this thread pulled. What do you say we just try to keep it civil?

Call me out by name, and I will do my best to respond.
 
In our work lives, all of us generate some kind of "work product". For some of us, that may be in the form of music, or pictures, or written or spoken words. For others, it may be something you can touch, or pick up, or operate. Just because you cannot actually lay hands on someones work product should not mean that it becomes free game for all, which is the basis for intellectual property laws.
 
Lately I have tended to avoid controversial threads but I am going to add my 2 cents in here. The internet has changed the world and it is difficult to apply old standards to it.

What is intellectual property and what is not?

Someone puts a billboard up on the freeway for everyone to see and it has a unique photo on it. Is that something that is the intellectual property of the person putting it up? Driving down the road, I notice it, like it, so I take a picture of it and send to my friends. Did I steel some ones property by doing this? If I take a picture of your house from a public road, am I steeling it? It is easy to see because of the circumstances that nothing was stolen in either case and the picture was placed in a very public place without restrictions to it. Once it is placed into the public domain without restrictions the person placing it there looses all control of it. If later he decides he does not want that photo in the public domain and takes the photo down, that is fine but he cannot restrict the photos I took and gave away and he cannot sue me for stealing something he gave away earlier when it was placed into the public domain.

The internet is like a freeway. If you don’t want your stuff used, don’t place it into the public domain without restrictions, or at least add copy protection to it. Registered content is something different. I believe the photo in question here was placed into the public domain without restrictions to start with, then the law firm bought the rights to it and registered it. The attorney has no right to take back the use of the photos before he registered it. The barn door was left open when it was first placed into the public domain. The cows are already out and it won’t do any good to close the barn door now.

Dave dlt.gif
www.tolandmarine.com
 
Excellent post Dave. You have a way with words. To the other guy, I don't dislike you. You are my favorite narcissist on the site.
Best wishes,
Forrest

PS: And you don't think this is calling someone out?

"Having had a private word with you, I know if I say "Up," you will say, "Down." Try not to confuse your dislike of me with the topic at hand. "
"Call me out by name, and I will do my best to respond."

I believe our disagreement was me trying to get you to stop calling out the factory till you walked a mile in their shoes.
 
Lets take this one step futher. I post something on this forum, and someone else copies this post-- (without credit)--is that infringement?

A few years ago, I was on the board of directors of a large boating organization. A criticism of a product was published in their bulletin. It was one person's opinion, but the subsiquent owner of the product producing company sued the organization (not the person who wrote the article) and eventually the organizations insurance paid off a $25,000 claim. This made it almost impossible to get insurance in the future. It was outright blackmail--but it worked. So you never know what will happen.
 
Back
Top