# Should I Be Upset About This?



## Hof8231 (Sep 1, 2015)

So, a little back story. For 2 seasons, I worked as the Trenton Freedom (Professional Indoor Football League) photographer. This summer, after the season ended, the team folded. Upon agreement between myself and the team, they were entitled to use any photos of mine for non-monetary purposes of promotion, social media, etc. However, I and I alone own the photos and no one else.

Well, fast forward to now. I found this picture on the Facebook page of another football team in another league, who signed the Freedom's former quarterback:




 

This is the original, taken by me during pre-game intros at a Freedom game:



 

I was quite angry when I saw that post on their page. No credit was given and no contact was made to ask my permission to use my image. I know they're not profiting off of it and it's only for promotion, but it still pisses me off. 

Am I right to be upset with this organization for doing this? Or do I have to get used to this kind of stuff? I have no problem with the players on the team I worked with editing my images and posting them on their pages, but I've never even met anybody in this organization.


----------



## jake337 (Sep 1, 2015)

I'm not sure but I'd sure be pissed at the **** post production!


----------



## jaomul (Sep 1, 2015)

This is probably outside of use that you agreed so it is fair to be annoyed, did you have it in a contract


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

Hof8231 said:


> So, a little back story. For 2 seasons, I worked as the Trenton Freedom (Professional Indoor Football League) photographer. This summer, after the season ended, the team folded. Upon agreement between myself and the team, they were entitled to use any photos of mine for non-monetary purposes of promotion, social media, etc. However, I and I alone own the photos and no one else.
> 
> Well, fast forward to now. I found this picture on the Facebook page of another football team in another league, who signed the Freedom's former quarterback:
> 
> ...


Have you contacted them and asked for an explanation?  Maybe that should be the first step here, contact them and ask where they got the image and did they realize that you own the copyright, and then go from there.

Give them a chance to respond and make it right first before going in guns blazing.  You might just be pleasantly surprised by the results.

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk


----------



## snowbear (Sep 1, 2015)

My gorilla friend has the idea - a civil inquiry to start things off might play out better.  It looks like their "Contact us" page goes to the General Manager's office.
ASI Panthers Official Site

(source: Wikipedia)
*Front Office*

Owner/CEO – Bill Mattis
General Manager – Will Mattis
Assistant General Manager – Tony Segura
Media Relations – Mariana Boguski


----------



## Ido (Sep 1, 2015)

Indeed, a friendly message requesting explanation is the best thing you can do as a first step.

To me, it looks like a violation of your agreement. You gave the the _Trenton Freedom_ permission to use your photos, *not the ASI Panthers*.


----------



## KenC (Sep 1, 2015)

Yep, contact them and ask nicely first.  It's also important to know what you want going in - a photo credit, or for them to take down the photo, or to pay you, or some combination?  If you're clear on this it will go much better.


----------



## Designer (Sep 1, 2015)

"Should I Be Upset About This?"

You should address this, but whether you get upset or not will be up to you.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

I never contact the entity violating my copyright when I find them, as it tends to weaken my attorney's negotiating position.  Instead, I send copies of all relevant documents and information, such as my contract, my copyright certificate for that photo, the original photo, the infringement photo, and a link to the website page where it's being displayed to my attorney, and get paid.

I like money, and I like being paid for my work.  But that's just me.


----------



## Ido (Sep 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> I never contact the entity violating my copyright when I find them, as it tends to weaken my attorney's negotiating position.  Instead, I send copies of all relevant documents and information, such as my contract, my copyright certificate for that photo, the original photo, the infringement photo, and a link to the website page where it's being displayed to my attorney, and get paid.
> 
> I like money, and I like being paid for my work.  But that's just me.


That’s all well and good, if the OP has an attorney to deal with that stuff.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

Ido said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > I never contact the entity violating my copyright when I find them, as it tends to weaken my attorney's negotiating position.  Instead, I send copies of all relevant documents and information, such as my contract, my copyright certificate for that photo, the original photo, the infringement photo, and a link to the website page where it's being displayed to my attorney, and get paid.
> ...


I didn't have one the first time either.  Guess what though?  It's easy to GET ONE.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Ido said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



Yup.. all it takes is a big bank account.  Question is, is it worth it for the OP to spend that kind of money in this situation when odds are good a simple, free email will suffice in solving the issue at hand?

Guess that's up for the OP to decide.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Ido said:
> ...


Actually, it doesn't take a big bank account.  I pay nothing up front.  I never have.  Not once.  My attorney gets half of whatever the settlement is, so he works to get as much for both of us as possible.

A copyright attorney worth their salt doesn't need money up front because they can look at a case and know right off the bat if it's worth taking, because it's usually pretty cut and dried.  Here's how simple it is:

You are the copyright holder?  Check.
You registered it with the copyright office?  Check.
Somebody else used it without your permission?  Check.
Letter from attorney to infringer: Pay the copyright holder this reasonable sum, or pay a LOT more if you make us take you all the way to Federal Court.

That's why they rarely ever actually go all the way to court, but get settled out of court instead, after some negotiation.

Done.  Money in the bank.

Hey, if the OP wants to "solve the issue" by having them apologize, or credit him by putting his name in a caption under it, or take it down, that's his business.

But me?  Yesterday another $1000.00 dropped into my PayPal account over another resolved infringement, no lie, no exaggeration.  That takes me to over $5000.00 for the year so far on infringements alone.

But that's just me.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

So really as long as you're willing to sue anyone at the drop of a hat for what may have been simple miscommunication then your attorney makes money.

Check

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 1, 2015)

Be a _mensch_, send them a note.


----------



## crimbfighter (Sep 1, 2015)

Well, it certainly is frustrating that your image is being used without permission and that you may have to go through some rigamaroo to get it corrected. That being said, if what's important is credit or having it removed, a simple email or phone call would probably be a good place to start. Most companies understand the value of copyright and would prefer to comply to avoid any issues.

With today's prevelence of digital media, often times people don't even understand the copyright issue because it has become common place to "share" everything digital at every turn. So much so that some media people want to share has probably changed hands so many time they would stand a chance of even finding the original artist or photographer. Plus, like was already mentioned, it could be a simple mistake or miscommunication. Is that worth suing over? If your goal is money, then maybe, but I'm my opinion that serves no purpose but to fuel constant state of litigation that wastes money and time. And can cost companies their existence or employees who may have mad a mistake their job. UNLESS they continue to refuse your wishes or to pay you even after being put on notice. Then the gloves can come off


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> So really as long as you're willing to sue anyone at the drop of a hat


I'm willing to protect my copyrights with legal force, and to get paid for all the time, effort, gear and work that I've put into making the stuff others like so much that they're willing to attempt to steal and use it without paying.  All that I've put into it over the years and the resulting images I make actually does mean something to me, so I rarely give it away, though I consider and act on a case by case basis, not "at the drop of a hat", as you put it.

So no, it's not about some deep greed I have where I just sue everybody "at the drop of a hat", the way you've tried to portray me.  I often donate work to raise funds or awareness for cancer research or cancer survivor groups or others I want to help in some way, for example.  I've spent many hours shooting, editing and printing for free for people who are down on their luck, but would like some photos of someone special in their lives.

But in general, I recognize that if people want to use my work, it means that my work has value.  That being the case, I think I rightly deserve to be paid for it.

If you want to do your job for free, be my guest.  I'm sure your boss will love you for it.  Or maybe just give away the overtime for free.  Or maybe just work 40 hours per week, but only clock 30.  That's all up to you, of course.



robbins.photo said:


> for what may have been simple miscommunication then your attorney makes money.


Copyright infringement is not "simple miscommunication", it's theft of someone else's work, it's illegal, and anyone paying even a little attention in today's age of information knows it.

My attorney makes money because he puts in the work to make that money, just like everyone else who makes money by working.

Again, you can work for free if you want to.  That's your business.  But most of us, including my attorney, are keen on making a living doing what we do.



robbins.photo said:


> Check.


Mate.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > So really as long as you're willing to sue anyone at the drop of a hat
> ...



Never said it was greed on your part.  Merely pointing out that in this case the approach your advocating would be extraordinarily heavy handed. 

Most likely the team got the picture from the player, and the player probably didn't understand that the image was copyrighted and it wasn't really his to give.  So a simple email should be more than enough to straighten all that out.

Your solution, at least from what I can tell, is to immediately get an attorney involved - and as such an attorney will be getting paid.  If not by you, then by the organization that violated the copyright.  One way or the other the lawyer isn't doing this for free, just as you don't work for free either.

So in this case the arena football team will have to end up settling with your lawyer for at the very least his legal fees, without even being given the opportunity to do the right thing first for what was most likely just an honest mistake.

If that works for you, so be it.  Doesn't really work for me.  I prefer giving people the benefit of the doubt first.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> Never said it was greed on your part.


You inferred it with "you're willing to sue anyone at the drop of a hat".  I'm not gonna dwell on it.  Just keeping it real here.



robbins.photo said:


> Merely pointing out that in this case the approach your advocating would be extraordinarily heavy handed.


That's one opinion.  I don't happen to share it.

The amounts in question that you deem "heavy handed" depends on the use of the infringed image(s).  Yes, they can be quite large sums in some cases, but not always, nor even usual.  The range of payments in negotiating these sorts of things are as little as $100 that the attorney and I split, so we each get $50 bucks.  That's not "heavy-handed", IMHO.  That's a little wake up call to the infringer not to do it again to me OR to anyone else.  You're welcome.



robbins.photo said:


> Most likely the team got the picture from the player, and the player probably didn't understand that the image was copyrighted and it wasn't really his to give.  So a simple email should be more than enough to straighten all that out.


These common excuses, tried by virtually everyone who ever steals any copyrighted works from music to movies to photos to anything else, are just as much BS as the guy who gets caught with a stolen bike saying, "it was just sitting there on the street, unlocked, so I figured nobody wanted it anymore.  It's a simple misunderstanding."

I just don't buy into that sort of thing in today's age of information.  Copyright infringement isn't some new idea that nobody's heard of.  It's at the beginning of every DVD, it's on every CD case, it's been all over the news for years thanks to the efforts of the RIAA, artists who've been infringed, and soccer moms with hard drives full of copyrighted music getting sued for each and every violation.  You'd have to have been in a cave for the past 20 or 30 years to not know about these issues.



robbins.photo said:


> Your solution, at least from what I can tell, is to immediately get an attorney involved and as such an attorney will be getting paid.  If not by you, then by the organization that violated the copyright.  One way or the other the lawyer isn't doing this for free, just as you don't work for free either.
> 
> So in this case the arena football team will have to end up settling with your lawyer for at the very least his legal fees, without even being given the opportunity to do the right thing first for what was most likely just an honest mistake.


So, those who infringe on artists' copyright should be given a pass if they claim they didn't know any better, and copyright attorney's shouldn't exist, because they're just in it to make money, and somebody will have to pay them.

We are in two completely different worlds, my friend.



robbins.photo said:


> If that works for you, so be it.  Doesn't really work for me.  I prefer giving people the benefit of the doubt first.


To each his own.  I prefer getting paid for my work when somebody likes it enough to want to use it.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  Ignorance of my rights is no excuse.  If they're truly that ignorant, it's time for their wake-up call, lest they continue to repeat it with me OR others, like the OP.  And NOTHING wakes people up like a letter from an attorney and making them pay for the goods they already grabbed off the shelf and walked out of the store with.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > I never contact the entity violating my copyright when I find them, as it tends to weaken my attorney's negotiating position.  Instead, I send copies of all relevant documents and information, such as my contract, my copyright certificate for that photo, the original photo, the infringement photo, and a link to the website page where it's being displayed to my attorney, and get paid.
> ...


Look, if you or anyone else wants to work for free, or to allow others to steal and use your work without them having to do anything buy say, "sorry", or maybe not even that, that's entirely your business.  Put it all out there in the "Creative Commons", if you like.  Give it all away, if that's your bag.  What you do with your own work means nothing to me.

But just because some of us actually think we deserve to be paid for our work, and are willing to pursue that payment doesn't make it self-aggrandizing BS or wrong in any way to defend that position.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> You inferred it with "you're willing to sue anyone at the drop of a hat".  I'm not gonna dwell on it.  Just keeping it real here.



Well actually you "inferred" that from my statements.  I think what you are wishing to accuse me of is implying it.  I'm also curious as to why you keep wishing to make this about you, as opposed to dealing with the OP's situation.



> The amounts in question that you deem "heavy handed" depends on the use of the infringed image(s).  Yes, they can be quite large sums in some cases, but not always, nor even usual.  The range of payments in negotiating these sorts of things are as little as $100 that the attorney and I split, so we each get $50 bucks.  That's not "heavy-handed", IMHO.  That's a little wake up call to the infringer not to do it again to me OR to anyone else.  You're welcome.



Yes.. because I know a ton of attorney's that will bill there time at $50.  Let me see.. umm.. well.. ok, none.  I haven't spoken to one yet that will bill for less than an hour even if all they had to do was open an email.   But hey, if you don't mind being known as the sue happy photographer willing to take anyone to court over anything, more power to you.  I still don't recommend that as a good course of action for the OP to take. 



> I just don't buy into that sort of thing in today's age of information.  Copyright infringement isn't some new idea that nobody's heard of.  It's at the beginning of every DVD, it's on every CD case, it's been all over the news for years thanks to the efforts of the RIAA, artists who've been infringed, and soccer moms with hard drives full of copyrighted music getting sued for each and every violation.  You'd have to have been in a cave for the past 20 or 30 years to not know about these issues.



So the team asks the kid for a photo, he gives them one off of face book, kid probably doesn't even know where photo came from because he got it from old team, probably never gave it a second thought.  And you don't "buy" that?

Well I can see what the problem here is right off the bat, this poor kid has obviously led a very sheltered life and hasn't been sued a dozen times already by folks such as yourself.  Thank goodness your here to clear all that up though.  Our hero.



> We are in two completely different worlds, my friend.



Yup.  And frankly, you can keep yours.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > The amounts in question that you deem "heavy handed" depends on the use of the infringed image(s).  Yes, they can be quite large sums in some cases, but not always, nor even usual.  The range of payments in negotiating these sorts of things are as little as $100 that the attorney and I split, so we each get $50 bucks.  That's not "heavy-handed", IMHO.  That's a little wake up call to the infringer not to do it again to me OR to anyone else.  You're welcome.
> ...


Since you obviously have ZERO experience dealing with this, while I actually deal with it quite regularly, I'm sorry to say that you have no idea what you're talking about.  I used that figure of $100 because it is an actual, real amount in the spreadsheet I keep to track this stuff here.

An copyright attorney can afford to get those little fish because of the big fish he also gets.  I see that you have this thing about focusing on the greed factor, but some attorneys will even work on some cases pro bono.  (this is the part where you gasp and say, "NO WAY!  I don't know ANY attorney who would work for such a low amount!").  Yeah, mind blown.

So, let's see.  You were wrong about needing a big bank account to pay a copyright attorney big bucks up front to even go after a claim.  You were wrong about how every amount is "heavy handed".  And now you're wrong in claiming that no copyright attorney would work on a case that only gets him $50.

But DO continue on with all your "knowledge" of this particular subject.  It's truly fascinating.



robbins.photo said:


> But hey, if you don't mind being known as the sue happy photographer willing to take anyone to court over anything, more power to you.


Again with the "greed-shaming" attempts.  Seriously, get over it.

Sorry, but I still don't think it's wrong to be paid for my work when people think it's good enough to take it and use it, even when they try to do it without telling me or paying me up front for it.  So no, I don't mind it at all.



robbins.photo said:


> I still don't recommend that as a good course of action for the OP to take.


I don't make recommendations, either way.  I'm just telling what I and others who are quite serious about their work, their copyrights, and making a living do.  The OP can make up their own mind, after seeing all the options out here.  Until I chimed in, the only one they saw was from people who said send them a letter and get... what?



robbins.photo said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't buy into that sort of thing in today's age of information.  Copyright infringement isn't some new idea that nobody's heard of.  It's at the beginning of every DVD, it's on every CD case, it's been all over the news for years thanks to the efforts of the RIAA, artists who've been infringed, and soccer moms with hard drives full of copyrighted music getting sued for each and every violation.  You'd have to have been in a cave for the past 20 or 30 years to not know about these issues.
> ...


Not in today's age of information and all the news and talk about copyright infringement that's out there, no, I don't.  And I think that anyone who does buy into that excuse is naive.



robbins.photo said:


> Well I can see what the problem here is right off the bat, this poor kid has obviously led a very sheltered life and hasn't been sued a dozen times already by folks such as yourself.  Thank goodness your here to clear all that up though.  Our hero.


You're welcome, and so is every infringer who finds out the hard way why they shouldn't infringe other's copyrighted works, and so is every artist who makes the copyrighted works and deserves to be paid for their efforts IF THEY WANT TO.



robbins.photo said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > We are in two completely different worlds, my friend.
> ...


Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're IN mine, where copyright laws actually exist, and you're just going to have to deal with it like an adult, as we all do.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Since you obviously have ZERO experience dealing with this, while I actually deal with it quite regularly, I'm sorry to say that you have no idea what you're talking about.



Well gee, good job on keeping it civil and not resorting to childish personal attacks. WTG.  Lol



> An copyright attorney can afford to get those little fish because of the big fish he also gets.  I see that you have this thing about focusing on the greed factor, but some attorneys will even work on some cases pro bono.  (this is the part where you gasp and say, "NO WAY!  I don't know ANY attorney who would work for such a low amount!").  Yeah, mind blown.



None of which I ever stated.  Beginning to really wonder who's posts your reading here.  I did state that most attorneys will not bill for less than an hour, which is quite true.  Your agreement with your attorney is apparently contingent on him threatening to sue anyone who violates your copyright.   Which is fine, but I guess the total disconnect you seem to be experiencing is that these aren't your photo's were talking about here.

We don't know if they were indeed registered, we don't know what the agreement between the OP and the original team was, we don't know if it's in writing or a verbal contract, we don't know what was stipulated in regards to usage rights for players, in short we really don't know much of anything.

Which.. and ok, going to give this some emphasis this so hopefully you won't infer something completely off base.. yet again:

*Makes the OP's situation different than the one you keep coming back to, which is your situation.  Not his.*



> Sorry, but I still don't think it's wrong to be paid for my work when people think it's good enough to take it and use it, even when they try to do it without telling me or paying me up front for it.



Which is something I've never stated, nor implied.  Again, I'm really wondering who's posts you are responding too.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 1, 2015)

unfortunately, photography has gone down the same path music did.
the digital age has made it easy, affordable, and accessible to pretty  much everyone.
in theory, this should be_* good *_news, and from the consumer end, it  is.
from the business and production end however....it has given birth to the most widespread instances of theft (yes, theft...sorry if that word offends you, but lets be honest and call it what it is) in recorded history.
Music, pictures, software...the internet is like a giant tree where people just come along and take what they want with nary a thought towards other peoples personal or intellectual rights.

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.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> 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.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 1, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > and when someone cries foul, they are often chastised for having the audacity to want to protect their property.
> ...



I always advocate honest and civil discourse as a first line approach to things like the OP's situation. 
A simple treatise with the offending party might yield faster and better results than an initial threat of litigation.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > and when someone cries foul, they are often chastised for having the audacity to want to protect their property.
> ...


How does it "solve the issue"?  "Suffice" at what?  What's the OP's goal here?


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> I always advocate honest and civil discourse as a first line approach to things like the OP's situation.
> A simple treatise with the offending party might yield faster and better results than an initial threat of litigation.



Yup.. usually does, and that's really all I was attempting to suggest.  If the team fails to respond or take appropriate action, then by all means, lawyer up.  Guess that's why I find some of the responses here so confusing, I'm not suggesting the op do nothing or "work for free", just saying that there is probably a better way to handle this than pulling the litigation lever right out of the gate.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



well, that will all depend on what the OP wants.
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. 
if the OP wants something different, that would have to be part of the discussion.
would I bring up litigation in the first round of negotiations?  no
would I consult my lawyer and have HIM send a letter if I cannot resolve the issue on my own? yes.
I would ultimately like the lesson to be....dont steal my $#&@


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> How does it "solve the issue"?  "Suffice" at what?  What's the OP's goal here?



From the initial posting the problem as stated is that the team is using his image without his authorization, and all it will likely take to get that to stop is a simple email letting them know that it is his image and that they are not supposed to be using it.  

As for the OP's goal in all this, that's a question you might wish to ask the OP.  If he wants photo credit or payment of some sort for the image, I'm sure he can probably work that out with the new team that's using it.  If he wants them to stop using it, I'm sure they most likely will once they find out it's copyrighted.  From his initial post it didn't sound like he was charging the players for using them on their facebook pages, but really that's up to the OP.  It is his picture, after all.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 1, 2015)

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 (Sep 1, 2015)

pixmedic said:


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



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

Lol

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


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 1, 2015)




----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> View attachment 107436




Ahh.. perfect.  Thanks brother.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 1, 2015)




----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


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.



pixmedic said:


> 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.



pixmedic said:


> 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 (Sep 1, 2015)

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


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> 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 (Sep 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



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 (Sep 1, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> 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 (Sep 1, 2015)

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 (Sep 1, 2015)

NancyMoranG said:


> 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 (Sep 1, 2015)

Ferret is not amused.


----------



## baturn (Sep 1, 2015)

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 (Sep 1, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> 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.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> 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.



And in some situations, maybe a good alternative.  Just not one I'd necessarily recommend in this case.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

baturn said:


> 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.



Actually I was a little busy trying to ward off the evil eye the ferret laid on me to notice... lol


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> 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?


It's not that easy, and at this point I couldn't even make a guess, without quite a bit of research, which is something I don't do AFTER an infringement.  I only do that when someone contacts me BEFORE using one of my images, in order to determine how much to charge them.  It's not at all like the ala carte menu I use for portraiture.

When someone contacts me BEFORE they use an image, and asks about licensing fees for use, I use FotoQuote to determine the base licensing fee.  From there, I may reduce it for various reasons, or even waive it entirely if I want to donate to their cause.

But in a situation like the OP's, I've authorized my VERY experienced copyright attorney, with a history of understanding the market value of various uses by various entities, to recommend the amount to pursue.

Part of what he does to figure that out is research the infringer to find out about them.  Is it an individual, a company, a corporation?  Is it merely local, regional, national, world-wide?  Are they profit motivated or non-profit?  What can they reasonably afford to pay vs standard market value for this use?  What other ways have they used the image?  Are they using it on other materials, brochures, websites, posters, or anything else?  Are they distributing it in other ways?

He starts with a friendly but formal legal letter to the infringing party, explaining the situation, and legally demanding disclosure on any and all uses of the image.  Subsequent to those findings, the amount we are seeking for their infringed use of the copyrighted image, which usually allows continued use of it.  He is authorized by me to negotiate with them for more or even less money, to a point, again based on his experience, known market values, and even the infringer's circumstances.

If they cannot come to terms, he informs them that the next step is Federal court, where we will be seeking greater damages for the infringement and to cover the additional costs of having to take that step.  That usually puts an end to it, as they would much prefer not to incur those additional damages, which can be quite severe.

I stay out of it all, from start to finish, dealing ONLY with my legal representative, so as not to accidentally muck up the works, and unintentionally screw myself or my attorney's efforts on my behalf.  Occasionally an infringer will contact me directly after hearing from my attorney.  Whatever they have to say or request, I simply refer them back to my attorney to work it out with him.


----------



## NancyMoranG (Sep 1, 2015)

OP said the team isn't profiting by it. I still would ask how they came to use the image. 
Did QB figure it's a picture of him and gave them permission ? (I know, I know)
Or did someone go to OP website and knowingly used it without permission?
Yup, I understand it's a business to a lot of you. And yup, have a lawyer on retainer for necessary things. But, Jeepers creepers, what ever happen to civility? 
Today, hubby went out and got to the parking lot 10 minutes before opening. Guy was NOT going to open that gate til exactly 7 a.m. 
I am the business owner opening my door when I see someone waiting.
People say, 'what has the world become..'


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

By the way, all the references in this thread to "this poor kid" are kinda funny.   

Hey, it threw me too.  I went along with thinking they were "kids" since that's the way at least one member was referring to the player in the photo.  Without researching the league, teams, players, fans, facilities, etc., I mentioned his "schoolmates", when it turns out these players are full grown adults, and the PIFL is serious business, not some local high school thing.  I stand corrected.

Website for the Professional Indoor Football League: Tickets

Season tickets start at $75 on the first team's website I looked at.

With this professional football league's teams, players, cheerleaders, fans, stadiums, box seats, tickets, merchandise and all the rest - there's no doubt in my mind that it's about making money for somebody, just as much as any other professional sports league, just on a smaller scale.

Now try to imagine their league and team websites with no photos on them.  Pretty boring, right?  Yeah, that's why photos add value to websites like that, and that's why they should have no problem paying for that added value, IMHO.

Again, not my issue, since it's not my photo, but I personally wouldn't "donate" my work to a profitable organization like the PIFL, or any of it's teams, or any of it's "poor kid" players even, any more than I would donate it to the NFL.

But that's just me.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> By the way, all the references in this thread to "this poor kid" are kinda funny.
> 
> Hey, it threw me too.  I went along with thinking they were "kids" since that's the way at least one member was referring to the player in the photo.  Without researching the league, teams, players, fans, facilities, etc., I mentioned his "schoolmates", when it turns out these players are full grown adults, and the PIFL is serious business, not some local high school thing.  I stand corrected.
> 
> ...



the really weird part is that given that pertinent bit of information, im actually kinda mad about it now...and its not even my picture.  i dunno...maybe it shouldn't even matter. maybe that's the whole point ive been missing.
why does one scenario make me mad but not the other? should it matter if they were for profit or not? kids or adults? (i assume adults manage the webpage) makes me think anyway....


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 1, 2015)

NancyMoranG said:


> OP said the team isn't profiting by it. I still would ask how they came to use the image.
> Did QB figure it's a picture of him and gave them permission ? (I know, I know)
> Or did someone go to OP website and knowingly used it without permission?
> Yup, I understand it's a business to a lot of you. And yup, have a lawyer on retainer for necessary things. But, Jeepers creepers, what ever happen to civility?
> ...



Was the gate keeper the owner?  Could he have lost his job for opening the gate early? What kind of car was your hubby driving? What happened the last time the gate was opened early?  The world has become what it always has I think it's always been; a bunch of individuals that decide how they want to be, based on a lot or reasons.  Civility has never been world wide as far as I can tell.  Would be nice.

Been watching too many episodes of Forensic Files lately, along with local and national and international news.   I got to stop that.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> the really weird part is that given that pertinent bit of information, im actually kinda mad about it now...and its not even my picture.  i dunno...maybe it shouldn't even matter. maybe that's the whole point ive been missing.
> why does one scenario make me mad but not the other? should it matter if they were for profit or not? kids or adults? (i assume adults manage the webpage) makes me think anyway....



Ok, well, for the record.

Most arena teams are supposed to be "for profit" but as it turns out very, very few of them actually are making any kind of a profit.  Most of them end up going under within a year or two of opening. The kids that play for them barely make enough money to make ends meet, and yes to me they are kids because I was out finding out what it was like to actually be stabbed long before any of them were a distant gleam in their daddies eyes.  

But the truth is none of that is really that central to the issue at hand, the question for me at least is did the team knowingly violate this copyright, or not.  And in this case, I seriously doubt it.  

If this team had gone to the OP's website and appropriated the image that would be one thing, but the OP made it pretty clear that the team members were using these images on their facebook pages with his permission.  So it seems only logical that the QB probably provided the new team with the picture without realizing there might be copyright issues.

So I still suggest that a polite email simply making the team aware that there are copyright issues is the best course of action.  The rest is all smoke as far as I'm concerned.  As usual, YMMV.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Was the gate keeper the owner?  Could he have lost his job for opening the gate early? What kind of car was your hubby driving? What happened the last time the gate was opened early?  The world has become what it always has I think it's always been; a bunch of individuals that decide how they want to be, based on a lot or reasons.  Civility has never been world wide as far as I can tell.  Would be nice.
> 
> Been watching too many episodes of Forensic Files lately, along with local and national and international news.   I got to stop that.



Can we get a DNA sample from said gatekeeper?

And no, I'm not volunteering, just asking.. lol


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 1, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> The rest is all smoke as far as I'm concerned.  As usual, YMMV.



Oh I see, back on the weed thing again.  You must have been really high when you let that bear get so close.  

BTW, it really works well to take the edge off of rheumatoid arthritis pain, especially when NONE of the other prescribed and expensive drugs work.   Save a lung, eat a cookie.


----------



## Parker219 (Sep 1, 2015)

OP- Soooooo...did you get all that? 

Are you still here?


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

Parker219 said:


> OP- Soooooo...did you get all that?
> 
> Are you still here?


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > The rest is all smoke as far as I'm concerned.  As usual, YMMV.
> ...



Never really was my thing to be honest.  I'm weird enough sober, never needed any help.  Lol


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 1, 2015)

Usage of the photo should be licensed or the photo taken down since the OP owns the photo (and the copyright), and agreed to allow usage of his photos by the _former_ Trenton team he was shooting for, not this current team.

I would probably contact this team's PR or media relations/communications director. Probably the team wanted a photo of their new player for the announcement, and since his former team in Trenton is defunct there is no former team to contact for a photo (so I'm guessing a staff person may have found the OP's photo somewhere online and doesn't know about licensing usage or that even though the team is defunct the photographer still owns the copyright).

The front office info. for the player's current team has staff listed without bios yet so I would take that to mean some staff have not been with the team long. (I would assume the PR person may not necessarily have been the one who obtained the OP's photo.)

I think I would call that person, write down what you plan to say, anything you want to be sure to ask, what they say, etc. It might be possible they'd want to license usage if they need to use the photo for preseason events/promotions, training camp, opening game night program, etc. If you license usage it should be for a specific time frame/specific purpose; once he's playing for them I'd think they wouldn't need the OP's photo because they'd have someone taking photos for them.

Since this player's former league is still in business (it looks like it is) I'd just make sure there weren't terms in a contract with the former team that allowed the _league_ usage; if so it might be necessary to find out if the league by chance gave this photo to the new team in a different league.

I did minor pro hockey where off ice officials etc. are paid in free tickets, so I wouldn't expect a lot of money being involved here to make it worth pursuing a copyright violation in court. I feel like handling it in a professional way is best and see what you can work out.

This may or may not be relevant but there is other info. available on the ASMP site as well as PPA or other pro photographers resources. 

What to do if your work is infringed | American Society of Media Photographers


----------



## NancyMoranG (Sep 1, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> NancyMoranG said:
> 
> 
> > OP said the team isn't profiting by it. I still would ask how they came to use the image.
> ...



I get what you are saying. So let's say the guy can NOT open the gate or he gets fired. That's where I am the type to walk over and start chatting and explaining I can't let him in. Then talk about his kayak sticking out of the car....just say in' .

The real reason might be they probably got sued for opening early.


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 1, 2015)

NancyMoranG said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > NancyMoranG said:
> ...



I hear you.  Ticks me off that somebody can't say thank you or smile when you hold a door open or an elevator for them.
I'm pretty chatty and sociable so I would have done what you mentioned.


----------



## vfotog (Sep 1, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> But the truth is none of that is really that central to the issue at hand, the question for me at least is did the team knowingly violate this copyright, or not.  And in this case, I seriously doubt it.
> 
> If this team had gone to the OP's website and appropriated the image that would be one thing, but the OP made it pretty clear that the team members were using these images on their facebook pages with his permission.  So it seems only logical that the QB probably provided the new team with the picture without realizing there might be copyright issues.
> 
> So I still suggest that a polite email simply making the team aware that there are copyright issues is the best course of action.  The rest is all smoke as far as I'm concerned.  As usual, YMMV.



Whether they knew it was infringement or not doesn't change the fact that it is infringement. Bottom line is that they SHOULD know it is infringement. Just like running a business, every single person that has a website should understand the rules and ramifications of their content. A professional company or organization has even less of an excuse; legal advisers are a part of doing business. They also have someone who is doing their site, graphics, etc. Surprisingly, I don't think anyone has mentioned that not only did they misappropriate the image, they altered it without permission. New team name, new colors...   they would need the OP's permission to do that. That makes the infringement even more egregious.  Of course, this case might be uncollectable anyway; it looks like the team became homeless and is inactive.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

vfotog said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > But the truth is none of that is really that central to the issue at hand, the question for me at least is did the team knowingly violate this copyright, or not.  And in this case, I seriously doubt it.
> ...


Well by all means, hire a lawyer and sue the crap out of them.  Just sue everybody for pretty much everything.  That will certainly make the world a much better place.

Guess you sort of have to wonder though, is it even really about protecting your copyright at that point, or just fulfilling some vindictive need for revenge at an imagined slight?

I mean if you could accomplish the same end result of protecting your copyright with a simple email, then a law suit is unnecessary.

So I guess that would be a good time to ask yourself, why?   You might want to ask yourself that question.



Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk


----------



## tirediron (Sep 1, 2015)

Is the OP 100% certain it is infringement?  Depending on how things  were worded  in his agreement with the original client, and how their assets changed hands, they could in fact be using it quite legally (the gawd-awful editing is another matter entirely).  Bankruptcy is a hugely complicated and convoluted process, and it is possible that given the right circumstances, this image is actually being used legally. 

That said, I doubt it.  It is also possible that the new entity thinks they're using it legally (again, I doubt if they gave it a thought, but it is _possible_!).  While I am absolutely in favor of always protecting your work, there are some considerations before you engage a lawyer and rush in with both barrels:  Are they using it legally? Assuming they're not, what is the harm done to you?  What is a reasonable expectation for the amount of damages you could receive?


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 1, 2015)

Asking a lawyer to draw up and forward the letter does not mean someone is being sued.  Sometimes using a lawyer prevents lawsuits, and can certainly be better use of ones time.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

tirediron said:


> Is the OP 100% certain it is infringement?  Depending on how things  were worded  in his agreement with the original client, and how their assets changed hands, they could in fact be using it quite legally (the gawd-awful editing is another matter entirely).  Bankruptcy is a hugely complicated and convoluted process, and it is possible that given the right circumstances, this image is actually being used legally.
> 
> That said, I doubt it.  It is also possible that the new entity thinks they're using it legally (again, I doubt if they gave it a thought, but it is _possible_!).  While I am absolutely in favor of always protecting your work, there are some considerations before you engage a lawyer and rush in with both barrels:  Are they using it legally? Assuming they're not, what is the harm done to you?  What is a reasonable expectation for the amount of damages you could receive?



Well, just off the top of my head mind you, first you need to establish whether the OP's agreement with the original team was verbal, or written.  Then you'd have to find out exactly what all was stipulated in the bankruptcy and how that may have affected said agreement.  Then you'd need to find out what the agreement was with the players in regards to the image usage, and was that established by the OP or communicated to them by the original team, and you'll need to know exactly what was communicated in this regard. Then you'd need to establish how the new team got the image, under what circumstances, and what they were told about the source of the original image.

Then of course there is the original question of whether or not these images are even registered.  Plus you have the extra added fun of trying to prove damages, since the OP already agreed to let the players use the images on social media any claim of lost income on his part is out, so all you'd have left would be to prove the company profited from this image, and by how much.

Yup.. have to admit, that all sounds so much better and more reasonable than taking a few minutes to shoot them an email and say, hey, guys, that image is copyrighted.  If you'd like to keep using it, I would appreciate XY&Z in return.  If not please stop using it.

Ya, not even sure what I was thinking there.,   I must be off my meds or something.  ROTFL


----------



## tirediron (Sep 1, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> Well, just off the top of my head mind you, first you need to establish whether the OP's agreement with the original team was verbal, or written.,  Then you'd have to find out exactly what all was stipulated in the bankruptcy and how that may have affected said agreement.  Then you'd need to find out what the agreement was with the players in regards to the image usage, and was that established by the OP or communicated to them by the original team, and you'll need to know exactly what was communicated in this regard  Then you'd need to establish how the new team got the image, under what circumstances, and what they were told about the source of the original image.
> 
> Then of course there is the original question of whether or not these images are even registered.  Plus you have the extra added fun of trying to prove damages, since the OP already agreed to let the players use the images on social media any claim of lost income on his part is out, so all you'd have left would be to prove the company profited from this image, and by how much.


  Which goes to support my contention that things (especially when the legal system is involved) are not necessarily as straight forward as we think!



robbins.photo said:


> Yup.. have to admit, that all sounds so much better and more reasonable than taking a few minutes to shoot them an email and say, hey, guys, that image is copyrighted.  If you'd like to keep using it, /I would appreciate XY&Z in return.  If not please stop using it.
> 
> Ya, not even sure what I was thinking there.,   I must be off my meds or something.  ROTFL


And thus my point:  He may have absolutely no case under law, because it is possible ('though I agree not likely) that the images are being used perfectly legally under the terms of the original agreement.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

tirediron said:


> Which goes to support my contention that things (especially when the legal system is involved) are not necessarily as straight forward as we think!



Nope.  Whenever the law becomes an issue, things get sticky fast.



> And thus my point:  He may have absolutely no case under law, because it is possible ('though I agree not likely) that the images are being used perfectly legally under the terms of the original agreement.



My guess is he probably does hold the copyright, and that even after a long and ugly, expensive lawsuit he could probably force them to stop using the image.  My guess is also that any damages claim is out the window, trying to prove the company knowingly used a copyrighted image and profited from it would be a serious mountain to climb to say the least. 

So it still makes sense to me to forgo all that and just shoot them an email, my guess is you'd get the exact same end result probably in less than 24 hours once they realized there was a problem with the image.  Heck you might even do better that way assuming they were willing to spend a few bucks to buy the rights, etc.  Worst case scenario they tell you to go pound sand, and then you can always get a lawyer. 

But sadly that method would not punish the evil doers and nerdowells properly I guess.  So it's off to the home depot to stock up on torches and pitchforks I guess.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 1, 2015)

I consider myself lucky to have read this thread.
As it happens, this evening I found out that my daughter had given a picture I had taken of my grandson to be used by the traveling soccer team he plays for in Fairfax, VA without my permission.
Usually I would have been pleased (it was a good picture) but, now that I have come to realize how I need to protect my copyright......
So, I called my other daughter who is an attorney in NYC but she hasn't returned my call yet.
I am hoping they'll do it on a contingency basis but...


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

robbins.photo said:
			
		

> Plus you have the extra added fun of trying to prove damages, since the OP already agreed to let the players use the images on social media any claim of lost income on his part is out, so all you'd have left would be to prove the company profited from this image, and by how much.


That's a common internet myth cooked up by folks who just don't know any better (yet).

As a copyright owner, I can put the image anywhere I want - on every telephone pole around the planet, if I want to do it and have the means.  I can put it all over every social media site, forum, Flickr, on billboards and bus benches for people to view it without asking a dime.  I can also grant any individual or corporation a license to post it anywhere they want in exactly the same way, without them making a single dime off it in any way as well.  It can be plastered all over the world by the two of us, for free, and it makes not one bit of difference from a legal standpoint.

Even with all that, anyone who uses it WITHOUT my license agreement with them is violating my copyright.  It doesn't matter if I and the licensee I granted plaster it everywhere without asking or getting a dime from anyone, and the infringer don't make a dime with it either.

The copyright holder doesn't have to prove anything other than that their image was used without their permission, violating their copyright.

Now, I hate to pull the "I know from experience" card yet again, since I know that scrapes a nerve, but, I happen to know this from experience.  Not plastered around the world, mind you, but same basic concept.  To wit: I have collected on infringements for images that I have never made a dime off of any other way.  I never sold those images to anyone, never licensed them for even the smallest amount of money.  Their only life up until the infringement was found was that I'd posted them in a lot of places to show them and / or to get feedback.

It didn't matter.

Anyone interested in these issues really should start with the basics of actual copyright law.  A good starting point, full of real, relevant information and frank, flat-out, no BS dispelling of so many internet myths that we tend to read from armchair attorneys, is presented in these two videos from B&H, from a recognized team of established photographer and established copyright attorney:


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> I consider myself lucky to have read this thread.
> As it happens, this evening I found out that my daughter had given a picture I had taken of my grandson to be used by the traveling soccer team he plays for in Fairfax, VA without my permission.
> Usually I would have been pleased (it was a good picture) but, now that I have come to realize how I need to protect my copyright......
> So, I called my other daughter who is an attorney in NYC but she hasn't returned my call yet.
> I am hoping they'll do it on a contingency basis but...



Lew... that's just silly.  You can't just go and have your daughter sue your other daughter. 

You need to make sure to name the grandson in the lawsuit too.  Don't let him weasel out of it using all those excuses like he wasn't an expert in copyright law, or that he's only 12, or whatever.  Nope, time for that kid to learn a valuable life lesson here.

Thanks by the way, I was laughing so hard reading this I got pop in my nose.  Lol


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

It's like the last four pages never even existed.  smh


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

> That's a common internet myth cooked up by folks who just don't know any better (yet)]



Nothing mythical about it.

17 U.S. Code § 504 - Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

15 U.S.C. 1127).
Pub. L. 94–553, title I, § 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2585; Pub. L. 100–568, § 10(b), Oct. 31, 1988, 102 Stat. 2860; Pub. L. 105–80, § 12(a)(13), Nov. 13, 1997, 111 Stat. 1535; Pub. L. 105–298, title II, § 204, Oct. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 2833; Pub. L. 106–160, § 2, Dec. 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1774; Pub. L. 108–482, title II, § 203, Dec. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 3916; Pub. L. 111–295, § 6(f)(2), Dec. 9, 2010, 124 Stat. 3181.)
Historical and Revision Notes
house report no. 94–1476
In General.
A cornerstone of the remedies sections and of the bill as a whole is section 504, the provision dealing with recovery of actual damages, profits, and statutory damages. The two basic aims of this section are reciprocal and correlative: (1) to give the courts specific unambiguous directions concerning monetary awards, thus avoiding the confusion and uncertainty that have marked the present law on the subject, and, at the same time, (2) to provide the courts with reasonable latitude to adjust recovery to the circumstances of the case, thus avoiding some of the artificial or overly technical awards resulting from the language of the existing statute.


Subsection (a) lays the groundwork for the more detailed provisions of the section by establishing the liability of a copyright infringer for either “the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer,” or statutory damages. Recovery of actual damages and profits under section 504(b) or of statutory damages under section 504(c) is alternative and for the copyright owner to elect; as under the present law, the plaintiff in an infringement suit is not obliged to submit proof of damages and profits and may choose to rely on the provision for minimum statutory damages. However, there is nothing in section 504 to prevent a court from taking account of evidence concerning actual damages and profits in making an award of statutory damages within the range set out in subsection (c).

Actual Damages and Profits.
In allowing the plaintiff to recover “the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement,” plus any of the infringer’s profits “that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages,” section 504(b) recognizes the different purposes served by awards of damages and profits. Damages are awarded to compensate the copyright owner for losses from the infringement, and profits are awarded to prevent the infringer from unfairly benefiting from a wrongful act. Where the defendant’s profits are nothing more than a measure of the damages suffered by the copyright owner, it would be inappropriate to award damages and profits cumulatively, since in effect they amount to the same thing. However, in cases where the copyright owner has suffered damages not reflected in the infringer’s profits, or where there have been profits attributable to the copyrighted work but not used as a measure of damages, subsection (b) authorizes the award of both.


The language of the subsection makes clear that only those profits “attributable to the infringement” are recoverable; where some of the defendant’s profits result from the infringement and other profits are caused by different factors, it will be necessary for the court to make an apportionment. However, the burden of proof is on the defendant in these cases; in establishing profits the plaintiff need prove only “the infringer’s gross revenue,” and the defendant must prove not only “his or her deductible expenses” but also “the element of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.”

Statutory Damages.
Subsection (c) of section 504 makes clear that the plaintiff’s election to recover statutory damages may take place at any time during the trial before the court has rendered its final judgment. The remainder of clause (1) of the subsection represents a statement of the general rates applicable to awards of statutory damages. Its principal provisions may be summarized as follows:


1. As a general rule, where the plaintiff elects to recover statutory damages, the court is obliged to award between $250 and $10,000. It can exercise discretion in awarding an amount within that range but, unless one of the exceptions provided by clause (2) is applicable, it cannot make an award of less than $250 or of more than $10,000 if the copyright owner has chosen recovery under section 504(c).

2. Although, as explained below, an award of minimum statutory damages may be multiplied if separate works and separately liable infringers are involved in the suit, a single award in the $250 to $10,000 range is to be made “for all infringements involved in the action.” A single infringer of a single work is liable for a single amount between $250 and $10,000, no matter how many acts of infringement are involved in the action and regardless of whether the acts were separate, isolated, or occurred in a related series.

3. Where the suit involves infringement of more than one separate and independent work, minimum statutory damages for each work must be awarded. For example, if one defendant has infringed three copyrighted works, the copyright owner is entitled to statutory damages of at least $750 and may be awarded up to $30,000. Subsection (c)(1) makes clear, however, that, although they are regarded as independent works for other purposes, “all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work” for this purpose. Moreover, although the minimum and maximum amounts are to be multiplied where multiple “works” are involved in the suit, the same is not true with respect to multiple copyrights, multiple owners, multiple exclusive rights, or multiple registrations. This point is especially important since, under a scheme of divisible copyright, it is possible to have the rights of a number of owners of separate “copyrights” in a single “work” infringed by one act of a defendant.

4. Where the infringements of one work were committed by a single infringer acting individually, a single award of statutory damages would be made. Similarly, where the work was infringed by two or more joint tortfeasors, the bill would make them jointly and severally liable for an amount in the $250 to $10,000 range. However, where separate infringements for which two or more defendants are not jointly liable are joined in the same action, separate awards of statutory damages would be appropriate.

Clause (2) of section 504(c) provides for exceptional cases in which the maximum award of statutory damages could be raised from $10,000 to $50,000, and in which the minimum recovery could be reduced from $250 to $100. The basic principle underlying this provision is that the courts should be given discretion to increase statutory damages in cases of willful infringement and to lower the minimum where the infringer is innocent. The language of the clause makes clear that in these situations the burden of proving willfulness rests on the copyright owner and that of proving innocence rests on the infringer, and that the court must make a finding of either willfulness or innocence in order to award the exceptional amounts.

The “innocent infringer” provision of section 504(c)(2) has been the subject of extensive discussion. The exception, which would allow reduction of minimum statutory damages to $100 where the infringer “was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright,” is sufficient to protect against unwarranted liability in cases of occasional or isolated innocent infringement, and it offers adequate insulation to users, such as broadcasters and newspaper publishers, who are particularly vulnerable to this type of infringement suit. On the other hand, by establishing a realistic floor for liability, the provision preserves its intended deterrent effect; and it would not allow an infringer to escape simply because the plaintiff failed to disprove the defendant’s claim of innocence.

In addition to the general “innocent infringer” provision clause (2) deals with the special situation of teachers, librarians, archivists, and public broadcasters, and the nonprofit institutions of which they are a part. Section 504(c)(2) provides that, where such a person or institution infringed copyrighted material in the honest belief that what they were doing constituted fair use, the court is precluded from awarding any statutory damages. It is intended that, in cases involving this provision, the burden of proof with respect to the defendant’s good faith should rest on the plaintiff.

Constitutionality
For information regarding constitutionality of certain provisions of this section, as enacted by section 101 of Pub. L. 94–553, see Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Appendix 1, Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Amendments
2010—Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 111–295 substituted “section 118(f)” for “subsection (g) of section 118”.

2004—Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 108–482 added par. (3).

1999—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 106–160, § 2(1), substituted “$750” for “$500” and “$30,000” for “$20,000”.

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 106–160, § 2(2), substituted “$150,000” for “$100,000”.

1998—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 105–298 added subsec. (d).

1997—Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 105–80 substituted “the court in its discretion” for “the court it its discretion”.

1988—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 100–568, § 10(b)(1), substituted “$500” for “$250” and “$20,000” for “$10,000”.

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 100–568, § 10(b)(2), substituted “$100,000” for “$50,000” and “$200” for “$100”.

Effective Date of 1999 Amendment
Pub. L. 106–160, § 4, Dec. 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1774, provided that:
“The amendments made by section 2 [amending this section] shall apply to any action brought on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 9, 1999], regardless of the date on which the alleged activity that is the basis of the action occurred.”


Effective Date of 1998 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 105–298 effective 90 days after Oct. 27, 1998, see section 207 of Pub. L. 105–298, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

Effective Date of 1988 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 100–568 effective Mar. 1, 1989, with any cause of action arising under this title before such date being governed by provisions in effect when cause of action arose, see section 13 of Pub. L. 100–568, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.


Yes, your lawyer may have gotten you settlements based on threating people with lawsuits.  happens all the time.  Many companies would much rather settle and pay a relatively small amount just to avoid the cost of litigation.  However, the actual law itself in regards to damages is something else entirely.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

LOL.  Gotta love armchair attorneys on the internet who know how to copy and paste, but have no actual experience with the actual subject.   

Watch the videos.  All the way through.  Actual experts.  Learn something real.  It's awesome.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> LOL.  Gotta love armchair attorneys on the internet who know how to copy and paste, but have no actual experience with the actual subject.
> 
> Watch the videos.  All the way through.  Actual experts.  Learn something real.  It's awesome.



Well, if you can't argue the facts, attack the poster I guess.  Sad.  Expected, but still.. sad.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.  Gotta love armchair attorneys on the internet who know how to copy and paste, but have no actual experience with the actual subject.
> ...


You refuse to recognize the facts, and prefer to make up your own as you go along.

I can't help it that I have a lot of experience with this, and you don't.  I'm sorry if that's a problem for you.  I really am.  But it is what it is.  Please stop taking offense at that unfortunate truth.

Watch the videos.  All the way through.  Real experts.  Real answers.  Learn some basics.  Benefit from it.  Be informed.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> You refuse to recognize the facts, and prefer to make up your own as you go along.



Yup.. that whole legal section containing the actual law on which damages are based, just made that up.  Gosh, you caught me.  Lol

You might want to watch the videos yourself.  You'll notice the damages that the lawyer is talking about have nothing to do with damages due to copyright infringement.  All of the cases he's discussing the damages are based on how people's reputations were damaged or by other legal factors, none of them are based on damages due to copyright infringement itself. 

Yes, a company might choose to avoid costly litigation on a case that is only about copyright infringement by settling out of court, something I mentioned previously.  But the actual law on damages resulting from copyright infringement itself are pretty clear.

But by all means, don't actually respond to any of that, just continue to resort to more personal attacks and tout your own experience in the process.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 1, 2015)

I've seen these videos many times, bought and re-read their books again from time to time, which are now highlighted in various sections on key points, have read several other books on copyright by others, and deal with attorneys on a weekly, sometimes daily, basis over these issues in real life.  Several claims are currently in negotiations, three more have just moved up to informing them that we'll be seeing them in Federal court shortly, since they are unwilling to do this the easy way.

What you're doing is like someone who's never even been to a zoo pretending that they know more about how to get successful shots at one than you, someone with a lot of experience doing that.  When you don't agree with them, they copy and paste the zoo's mission statement, somehow expecting that will make you say, "Oh, well in that case, you must be correct".

I've already stated plainly that I'm not the attorney in all of this, and I don't have to be one to be informed by actual experts on the subject.  I don't have the burden of interpreting the law as written, nor in explaining it to you.  My experience is that of a copyright holder who is a client of knowledgeable copyright attorneys who inform me of my legal rights and what cases we can and should or should not take, and why or why not.  That's not really much of a stretch for me.

I'm sorry that none of that is enough to enlighten you or satisfy your knee-jerk reactions to finding out you don't know what you're talking about.  But in the end, it's no sweat off me if you remain obstinately uninformed on these issues.

Now, you can copy and paste anything you want, all day and night, but that still doesn't make you a copyright attorney, copyright expert, nor even someone with actual experience dealing with these issues in real life.

And since I started watching the two videos again for the umpteenth time when I posted them, and am only about a bit over an hour through the 3 hours they total, I'm pretty sure you haven't finished yet either.  You want to pick out a phrase or something here and there, thinking that it will prove me wrong and you right, and you're just completely missing the whole picture in your zeal to win some e-points.

Watch the videos.  All the way through.  Real experts.  Real answers.  Become informed.

Or don't.

But if you think for one minute that I'm going to believe your internet armchair-attorney  "knowledge" and interpretations of the law when they conflict with those of the actual copyright attorney's that get me paid, and over the many experts' videos and books I have and continue to consume on the subject, I recommend you don't hold your breath.

Cheers!


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

Lol...

I did watch the videos.  They don't really support your point.  You claimed that damages for copyright infringement damages were not based  on whether or not it was intentional.  You chastised me and proclaimed it to be a myth.  Turns out you were wrong, completely.  The law clearly states otherwise.  Your videos don't address this, at all.   They do nothing to support your proclamation, because no lawyer would.  Truth is your just wrong.

So yes I have found your proclaiming victory at every turn without actually addressing any of the facts amusing, but the plain and simple truth is you have nothing to support your statement because it was frankly untrue.  But hey, by all means, continue to attack me personally and do your little church lady superior dance.  It really does make me laugh.


----------



## vfotog (Sep 1, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> > That's a common internet myth cooked up by folks who just don't know any better (yet)]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you copied and pasted but you apparently didn't understand it. you can elect to go for "actual" damages or "statutory" damages. With statutory, you don't need to prove ANY actual damages. There are statutory damages tied to all infringement.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2015)

vfotog said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > > That's a common internet myth cooked up by folks who just don't know any better (yet)]
> ...


Actual damages are limited to what you can prove you lost in income or they profited by the use of the image.  In that case intentional violation of copyright is not important because the damages are based only on what you can prove were actual financial losses caused by the infringement.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Statutory damages limit the damages to almost nothing unless you can prove the infringement was intentional, clearly indicating that the assertion that intent does not limit damages to be a completely false statements.

I didn't even need to get out of my armchair for that.  



Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk


----------



## tirediron (Sep 1, 2015)

Since it's several pages since anything productive was posted, I'll assume we're done here.


----------

