# Photo Stealing / Ripping - Need Lawyer



## chrigah (Jun 9, 2016)

hey guys,
i don´t know how important this topic is for you but i think it´s more important than you think.

i´m chris, a photographer for architecture and art, working european-wide and asien-wide and i´m constantly getting ripped of my photos. but i´m defending myself. seriously, i´m making half of my money by suing companies who use my pictures without asking and paying me. i talk constantly with other photographers and most of them shrug and say "you can do nothing about it". but that´s not true!! we photographers should unite, if you ask me. we should not tolerate that our photos are being stolen again and again. take action!

so much for that. i already know how it works - for example - in germany. i find unlicensed pictures, i call my lawyer, he takes care of it, i receive my money. what i don´t know is how it works in the u.s.

right now a big furniture company from sacramento uses my picture promoting their products. they didn´t ask me, pay me, mention me as the author. so, for christ´s sake, i want my money. they earn money with my picture and i dont´t see a single penny for it? no, just no.

so, how does it work in the u.s.? can someone recommend a lawyer?  how does the settlement work? i have an agreement with my german lawyer: he gets 40% from the amount he eked out of court. it´s much money but he also is highly motivated fighting for me because he participates on the win. (sorry, i´m not a native english speaker, maybe it´s wrong how i express myself but i hope you understand me anyway).

best regards and thank you
chris


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 9, 2016)

There's a few photogs here on TFP that license their photos and track online usage, have a lawyer on call and do the same thing that you do.  I can't recall who it is off the top of my head but I'm sure they'll come along.

If you can change your title to include "need lawyer"


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 9, 2016)

ah yes, a quick search and the FIRST hit is this thread with the person I was thinking of.  You may want to send them a message ==> Should I Be Upset About This?


----------



## Designer (Jun 9, 2016)

chrigah said:


> i already know how it works - for example - in germany. i find unlicensed pictures, i call my lawyer, he takes care of it, i receive my money. what i don´t know is how it works in the u.s.


It works the same way in the U.S.


----------



## waday (Jun 9, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> ah yes, a quick search and the FIRST hit is this thread with the person I was thinking of.  You may want to send them a message ==> Should I Be Upset About This?


Buckster's information is relevant, but he passed away earlier this year.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 9, 2016)

waday said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > ah yes, a quick search and the FIRST hit is this thread with the person I was thinking of.  You may want to send them a message ==> Should I Be Upset About This?
> ...


I was unaware of that.  So sorry to hear


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 9, 2016)

There is information for professional photographers on American Society of Media Photographers . The info. on copyright, usage, etc. is for the US market.

I participated in a webinar thru ASMP about copyright that include discussing copyright violations. The recommendation for most cases was that the photographer can issue a DCMA takedown. So the company takes down and stops using the photos. The reason for that recommendation is that usually unless it's a large company the photographer likely would not get much money beyond lawyer and court costs (if even enough to cover that).

You said it's a furniture company, and I'm not sure why they'd be using photos found online? I'd think they'd need photos of _their_ furniture. Although if it's a chain store, then maybe they'd use more generic photos? and you'd probably need to find out where the headquarters are located.

I would suggest you think about where you're putting your photos and look at the Terms & Conditions on the websites. Many photo sharing websites include in the terms that site users allow for distribution etc. of their photos by the website.

Those are often referred to as 'photo rights grab' sites because by putting your photos on their websites they can 'grab' the rights and use the photos without necessarily notifying or compensating the site users.


----------



## terri (Jun 9, 2016)

waday said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > ah yes, a quick search and the FIRST hit is this thread with the person I was thinking of.  You may want to send them a message ==> Should I Be Upset About This?
> ...


I completely missed this news, but looking further at his account, I see where his daughter informed us in another thread in Off Topic, back in February.   I'm so sorry to hear this.   

OP: my apologies for hijacking your thread, but I am just learning of the death of a long-time member here.   I am sorry.


----------



## DarkShadow (Jun 9, 2016)

Same here as what Designer has already sad.Sorry to here about Buckster,my condolences.


----------



## chrigah (Jun 10, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> There is information for professional photographers on American Society of Media Photographers . The info. on copyright, usage, etc. is for the US market.
> 
> You said it's a furniture company, and I'm not sure why they'd be using photos found online? I'd think they'd need photos of _their_ furniture. Although if it's a chain store, then maybe they'd use more generic photos? and you'd probably need to find out where the headquarters are located.
> 
> ...



Thanks for every message, guys, especially vintagesnapes. just in short: the furniture company stole the photo from the architects website. see, i never put photos on photo sharing websites. all my photos are protected by copyright. that special photo is actually an interior photo where you see a furniture piece that this company sells. it´s totally by chance that they found and use my picture. it´s actually quite funny because the company´s basic business model is copying designer furniture and sell them for less than the original price. so they copied my picture too and thought "na, we´ll get away with it anyway, like always".

so, coming back to the topic: many times i´m not against the use of my pictures, so i´m not always interested that they put them down. i just want to get payed. in the thread that astroNIKON found - thanks buddy - someone wrote basically "be a MENSCH, talk to them". well, that doesn´t really work. most times they´ll put the photo down and claim they never used it. your lawyer must catch them red-handed by sending them a cease and desist letter. at least in germany this is practiced law. you offer them a compromise settlement, that means if they pay there won´t be any involving of court. i don´t know if it works the same way in the u.s.

but i will find out! 

and just by the way, i don´t speak about some hundreds of dollars i make with the unethical behavings of companies. not even a few thousands. i make a high five digit amount every year just because companies use my picture without asking and paying me. what i want to say is: every photographer should defend themself. it´s not a trivial offense. get those companies educated.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 10, 2016)

Don't want to hijack the OP's thread but this sort of ties in. To be enforceable in court doesn't your image have to be registered with a copyright office? And though some countries don't , I was under the impression that the US recognized the copyright status of other countries. It was my understanding that just putting your name on a print didn't make it copyrighted.


----------



## petrochemist (Jun 10, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Don't want to hijack the OP's thread but this sort of ties in. To be enforceable in court doesn't your image have to be registered with a copyright office? And though some countries don't , I was under the impression that the US recognized the copyright status of other countries. It was my understanding that just putting your name on a print didn't make it copyrighted.


In the UK your photo is copyright as soon as you take it. Adding your name is not required...
However getting compensation for theft of a non-registered image is probably MUCH more difficult.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 10, 2016)

The US has a "fair use" doctrine built into the copyright law and it's a defense to copyright infringement if certain elements are met. The defense is decided on a case-by-case basis. "The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. Recently a big name case in the news was Google and their posting of "samples" of books. They won by the way.


----------



## chrigah (Jun 10, 2016)

does anyone know how the registration of copyright works in the u.s.? does it mean i need to prove that these pictures are mine to someone sitting in a bureau? hmmm.

the "fair use" doctrine sounds okay to me. if for instance someone with a passion for archtitecture posts pictures of mine at his personal blog, that´s alright for me. but as soon as someone promotes products with my pictures and earn money with it - i´m out. it´s the same with music production software: those big companys wink at ripping off their sequencer programms as long as you don´t sell your music on a grand scale.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 10, 2016)

chrigah said:


> the "fair use" doctrine sounds okay to me



Been awhile since I dealt with it, and maybe some others on here have more recent experience. Also I'm not an attorney, and nothing posted herein should be construed as legal advise. If you are concerned about infringement of your work you should contact an attorney familiar with the copyright laws of this country.

Section 107 of the Copyright Act states:

_the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright_.

_In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;_

_the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; *and *the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
_
However in all likely hood you'll end up in court on an infringement of the "Fair Use" policy. As I understand it, you own the image as soon as you push the shutter button on the camera, throughout your life and 25 years past. You can reproduce it, prepare derivatives. distribute by sale,license, rental or lending, publicly display as yours etc. The moment you post or display that photo in a public medium, it further establishes that image as yours. *There is an exception to "work for hire" which might supersede your ownership rights. *

You don't have to register your image for a copyright to occur nor do you have to post any notice on your image. However to enable you to prove when your ownership occurred it is advisable to include the copyright symbol, your name and the year. This won't protect you from someone stealing your image but serves as a reminder that your work is not "public domain" available for free unrestricted use. If your image "is not" registered with the US Copyright Office *prior to an infringement,* you can only collect "actual" not "statutory" damages, which could run up to $150,000 per infringement if you can prove it was willful.

Registration is voluntary and may be done online with U.S. Copyright Office  It's pretty self explanatory and can be done online, but supposedly can take up to 8 months to complete.

You also have to understand that regardless a large company will view any infringement claim two ways. 1. How much will it cost to make you go away 2. How much will it cost to defend. If you have substantial proof that they infringed and your claim for damage is minimal. They will likely pay you and walk away, but if your claim is substantial, they will do their best to wear you down financially and mentally.


----------



## KmH (Jun 10, 2016)

You don't own copyright until the work is recorded in a tangible medium, like a memory card.

US Copyright lasts for the life of the author + 70 years, IF the copyright owner does not transfer copyright ownership to some other entity.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 10, 2016)

KmH said:


> work is recorded in a tangible medium



Forgotten a lot of it. The only reason I have any knowledge of it was because in the early 80's I worked a few years as VP of a privately owned corporation that filed suit against another company for blatant patent violations, copyright violations, and trademark violations. We finally won after a long and protracted legal battle, but I'm not sure that the win was worth the effort.


----------



## Dave442 (Jun 10, 2016)

Every time I have used a lawyer I have found that they are very good at doing the discovery work and then presenting the options to the other party in order to settle the action. In more than a few cases I have been the one to pull them in a bit on how much they want to go after the other party. 

As Buckster had so well laid out and the OP has also noted, collecting on copyright violation is best done employing a party that also has an interest in the monetary gain.

Generally I try and have a lawyer recommend a lawyer, so for the OP my recommendation would be to see if his lawyer has any recommendations for one that is current on U.S. law.


----------



## chrigah (Jun 14, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> they will do their best to wear you down financially and mentally.



...but only if you don´t have a lawyer that plays by the same game. i never allowed the other party to wear me down because of my bloodhound lawyer. so i think it strongly depends on your lawyer if you´re successful or not.

thank you dave442 for your message. do YOU have a recommendation for me?


----------



## table1349 (Jun 14, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> The US has a "fair use" doctrine built into the copyright law and it's a defense to copyright infringement if certain elements are met. The defense is decided on a case-by-case basis. "The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. Recently a big name case in the news was Google and their posting of "samples" of books. They won by the way.


fair use
_noun_

(in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.


----------



## fmw (Jun 14, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Don't want to hijack the OP's thread but this sort of ties in. To be enforceable in court doesn't your image have to be registered with a copyright office? And though some countries don't , I was under the impression that the US recognized the copyright status of other countries. It was my understanding that just putting your name on a print didn't make it copyrighted.



Copyrights do not require registration.  If it ends up in a legal action the proof of ownership is the original image.  For example if the shot was copied from the internet, the raw file owner will be the winner.

In my area, we always worked by the hour and expenses.  The commercial customer was the owner of the images.   The concept was always to get paid for the work, not hope for future revenue from images which likely didn't have much universal appeal.  If you want future revenue from images there are plenty of stock agencies that can distribute your work.  Commercial shooting is a different animal in my view.  If I were the OP I would consider the architect to be the one harmed, not the photographer.  The architect would likely be happy to see an image of their work on he internet.

If you aim your lawyer at a U.S. company, they are likely to remove your image from their web site and ignore the lawyer.  They know you aren't going to litigate and they aren't likely to pay you anything.  After all, they are thieves.  You may be able to handle that without paying a lawyer.   

The internet has changed the professional photography world a bunch.  Be sure you get paid properly for your work so you don't have to worry about the images themselves.  If you want to earn over time from your images, the stock agency is the answer.


----------



## KmH (Jun 14, 2016)

Yes.
Some photographers have dramatically reduced the value of high quality photographs by giving away their valuable copyrights and treating photographs like a commodity.
That's a major reason doing photography as a way to make a living is rapidly moving towards extinction.
Yes, the Internet has played a part and there are other factors involved - like the consolidation of the stock photography industry.

Until a couple of years ago Canada copyright law granted copyright to whoever commissioned photographs to be made. Business savvy Canadian photographers had a clause in their contracts that was a copyright transfer from the commissioning entity to the photographer so the photographer would own their intellectual property (work product).
Canada copyright law is now very similar to US copyright law and the photographer owns copyright from the time the photograph is recorded in a tangible medium.

While here in the US we own copyright as soon as our work is recorded in a tangible medium, registering our copyrights with the US Copyright Office gets us a broader range of legal remedies than if we don't register our copyrights.

Copyright law (US Title 17) is federal law, so copyright infringement cases are heard in federal court, not in lower courts.
Copyright law (§411 · Registration and civil infringement actions) require a work be registered, or be in the process of being registered, before the court will accept an infringement action - with limited exceptions noted in US Title 17 §106a · Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity.

Sans registration we really have no way to enforce our copyrights.

Back in the day I made a substantial portion of my income from a plethora of stock images I made over the years. Today, with the consolidation of the stock photography agency business, and because photographs are now treated by so many photographers as a commodity.
Today, income from stock images is very low.


----------



## KmH (Jun 14, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> fair use
> _noun_
> 
> (in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.


That's only a small part of the legal definition of Fair Use.
Lots of people only quote that part of the Fair Use doctrine - often as a means to justify their infringement of someones copyright.

Here is what US Copyright law says about Fair Use:


> *§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use*
> 
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
> 
> ...



Additionally, on the US Copyright web site it also says:


> In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. *This means that there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission.*


----------



## table1349 (Jun 14, 2016)

True, however in the context of the OP's post and situation, criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research do not apply.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 14, 2016)

KmH said:


> That's only a small part of the legal definition of Fair Use



May be wrong but I think he was addressing the part that pertained to my previous comment about the Google lawsuit.



chrigah said:


> ...but only if you don´t have a lawyer that plays by the same game.



From your previous posts you've indicated you had some success in collection, however as I've said and others have said, the success may have been just as good on your own. Having been on both sides of the table in some high dollar "games", I can tell you that any claim for damage was first investigated as to the legitimacy of the claim, unless it was a rock solid claim, it was automatically denied. If it continued,  regardless of fault, the value of the claim was compared to the cost of litigation, and the decision was made to settle or fight the claim. With billing rates of $750-$2500/hr for specialized attorney's you're going to find it difficult to find a good attorney that will be willing to take your small claim on a percentage.


----------

