# Copyright infringement - the idiot guide



## photographyprogess (Aug 11, 2009)

I've been reading a blog (which we're gonna keep unknown for obvious reasons) for a few months mainly because of the bloggers tendency to present himself as not exacly the brightest person in the world. (Yes, they can be fun to read.)

A couple of weeks ago he published a picture that seemed to be a bit different from what he usually would publish, as the exposure was on the spot and it seemed to be a pretty good photo of two children on the beach. What made me react on the picture were the children. These were the children of a close friend of mine, and the picture seemed to be an exact copy of a picture I took in the beginning of July when I visited my friend. As you've guessed the photo was shot by yours truly. This picture was published on my friends blog, so it's pretty clear where the blogger downloaded it. 

So I made a comment on his post where I mentioned the similarity of my friends kids and asked where he had taken the picture which upon he answered he had taken it on a beach outside of the town he lives in. The problem would be that my friend lives approx. 850 km from him. 

And then I wrote him an email where I told him to unpublish the picture and write a public apology for the publishing of the photo and the claim of him being the photographer, or if he would continue to use the photo to pay me approx. 400$. He answered me that he would neither apologise nor pay me as he took the picture himself. (I still would like to know how as he claims the kids were at a beach they never have been at.) 

He claims to be making 500$ a month on his blog, so the price I'm asking for would in my opinion be reasonable as it is the going rate where I live for these kinds of violations. 

We are still discussing this matter over email. I have also sent a DMCA to the datacenter (in the US) where the blog is hosted with the appropriate documentation proving my ownership of the photo.

So do have anybody else have a similar story to share of a copyright infringement done like a real idiot would do it?


----------



## iflynething (Aug 11, 2009)

Do you shoot RAW and do you have that file?

That would prove right there, mainly, that you own the picture and YOU took it

~Michael~


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 11, 2009)

Indeed. As long as you can produce that RAW image, and no one else can, it's pretty strong evidence that you're the copyright holder (barring any contracts or agreements that transfer copyright to anyone else).


----------



## photographyprogess (Aug 12, 2009)

And that's what I did in the DMCA. But I didn't just send in the original RAW to the DC, I also sent in a few other pics from the same series ... just to make it extra obvious. 

I didn't send the original to the blog owner as that would be a pretty stupid thing to do. (Giving him the original file for the picture so he could use it to prove the "authenticity".)

I also found at least 3 other pictures that I know he didnt' shoot, so I contacted the photographers the copyright belong to. This was done before I did the DMCA, and I know one of the others also sent in a DMCA to the DC . (As I recommended her to do.) 

What makes the blogger stupid is the fact that he used a photo of some children he didn't know, and claims to have taken it on a place where the children has never been. I could also add to the story that there are no sandbeaches like the one on the photo where he lives. I live in a neighboring town to his, and have been in the area several times.

If your gonna lie, than you should at least make an effort to try to hide the truth.


----------



## iflynething (Aug 12, 2009)

I'm anxious to see how this turns out!

~Michael~


----------



## KmH (Aug 12, 2009)

Did you get screen shots of his blog?

Are you familiar with the doctrine of "fair use"?

Help! I've been infringed!


----------



## photographyprogess (Aug 12, 2009)

@Kmh:

This is definately not fair use as he presented the photo as a photo he had shot himself. This is what made me pi**ed off. He is using my picture, and tell people he shot it. He even removed the copyright marker on the bottom of the picture.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 12, 2009)

Indeed. Claiming that the image is your own falls outside of fair use pretty clearly. Removing the watermark is also a pretty darn clear sign of intentional, willing copyright infringement.

You could always call a lawyer too and sue their butt off. Not that that's terribly friendly, but you've been pretty nice by merely asking to have it taken down or that they pay for the image.


----------



## photographyprogess (Aug 12, 2009)

That's probably what's gonna happen too. But as this is in Norway, it's not as easy to sue people. But at least I am in the position where I can afford to sue him. 

The DC has suspended the site now, so it looks like they believe me and take this matter serious (as they should do.)


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 12, 2009)

photographyprogess said:


> The DC has suspended the site now, so it looks like they believe me and take this matter serious (as they should do.)



Of course they do. If they didn't you could sue them.


----------



## KmH (Aug 12, 2009)

photographyprogess said:


> That's probably what's gonna happen too. But as this is in Norway, it's not as easy to sue people. But at least I am in the position where I can afford to sue him.
> 
> The DC has suspended the site now, so it looks like they believe me and take this matter serious (as they should do.)


So much for making $500 a month.

Did you get screen shots of the infringement?


----------



## photographyprogess (Aug 12, 2009)

I got both screenshots, print outs, and the testification of the childrens father (my friend), and I have screenshots and print outs of all communication we've had through e-mail. I've stopped talking to him over the phone, and has referred him to contact me either by email or letters. 

I am going to contact my lawyer and let him write an official letter to scare the guy, and then we'll see what happens the next days. 

PS: I'm not the guy to step down when it has gone this far, so I guess he'll learn to not infringe ona  copyright the hard way.


----------



## photographyprogess (Aug 19, 2009)

Well, I recieved an angry e-mail yesterday from H (the blogger). He is angry on me as I shouldn't, in his opinion, have published the photo if I didn't want anybody to use it. This is the short summary without the profanities. 

So I've just talked to my lawyer, and we are going further with the matter. (This will probably end in the court, where I am pretty shure I will win.)

The DC has still not unsuspended his blog, so I suspect he's not willing to remove the picture.

What really made me p*ssed was the fact that removed the watermark and told his readers *he* was the photographer. Something I will not allow him to do. If this ends up in the court, he will have a minor problem as I am in real life an investor, with a pretty good income. (Last year my company made a profit of about 1.2 mill. $.) So I am both willing, and can afford to, to take this to court as it'll probably only cost me 2,000 $. And if I win, he'll have to pay my expenses for my lawyer. 

We're talking about the principle, and those who know me can tell you I'm definately willing to go all the way just for the principle. (I'm funny that way.  )

(And yes, this guy seem to be one of the most stupid persons I've met so far during my 35 year old life.)


----------



## kundalini (Aug 19, 2009)

I ran across this interview the other week and found it to be an eye opening experience.  I had some vague knowledge of the eventual need to register my photos, but didn't consider I was "there" yet.  I'm certainly reconsidering my thoughts on this matter as I'm in the process of starting a business with this expensive hobby called photography.

The interview is targeted for the US audience, but perhaps Norway has something similar.  It's a good listen for anybody concerned about protecting the copyright of their photos.  Keith (KmH) has posted some very useful links and book recommendations also.  Visits to B&N or Amazon are on my short list.

The interview at *PhotoshopUserTV.com with copyright attorney Ed Greenberg*.

Good luck with your case photographyprogress.


----------



## photographyprogess (Aug 19, 2009)

In Norway we don't have to register the copyright. The photo is copyrighted as soon as it's published.


----------



## photographyprogess (Aug 27, 2009)

Well. It has escalated. My "friend" has written me a letter where he accuses me of wanting to do him "harm", and he will not pay me the money for the use of the picture as, and I quote him, "... the picture was put on a blog, and therefore free to use." (Translation by me)

He has also called me on my phone several times, and a few sms messages, and made threats toward me. There will be consequenses if I continue my falsely accusations.

So the future is starting to look a bit more "interesting". I hadn't originally planned to go this far, but I have decided to take this all the way to court as he has gone way too far. So I'm leaving this matter to my lawyer, and I will report his threats to the police.


----------



## Overread (Aug 27, 2009)

Sounds like the right thing to do - also keep a log of all contact with him and keep any messages he send to you via phone - harrassment is another thing you can add to the kettle and might be taken more seriously by the courts as well.

My guess is that, like many, he is hoping that the net will save him since most people bluster a lot more, feeling safe that they are far enough away not to be affected.


----------



## photographyprogess (Aug 27, 2009)

Well, as he claims he has several lawyers I guess I'll have some interesting days and months ahead. (How he would afford these lawyers I can't really understand as his yearly income is approx. 36.000$. Which is the average income in Norway. I'm making about 5 times more myself.)


PS: And his blog is still not available. So I got a feeling he's not willing to prove his ownership of the pics to the DC.


----------



## photographyprogess (Oct 15, 2009)

Well, there has been some interesting developments in this case. We have come to terms, and the blogger is going to pay me  approx. 1500$ as compensation for the use of the photo and the costs to my lawyer. 

It seems like he has spoken with a lawyer, or maybe all three as he claimed he had several lawyers, which told him he would loose the case in the court. So the moral? Don't mess with a Norwegian amateur photographer who's strongheaded.


----------



## FrankLamont (Oct 15, 2009)

Good job -- don't back down... 

Though I suspect that 'friend' is no longer a friend, eh?


----------



## Garbz (Oct 15, 2009)

I just read that as don't mess with a Nigerian, and thinking wow who in their right mind would hand over $1500 to a Nigerian.  

Good work


----------



## skieur (Oct 15, 2009)

photographyprogess said:


> In Norway we don't have to register the copyright. The photo is copyrighted as soon as it's published.


 
Same for Canada.

skieur


----------



## Plato (Oct 15, 2009)

Garbz said:


> I just read that as don't mess with a Nigerian, and thinking wow who in their right mind would hand over $1500 to a Nigerian.


 
Anyone that has been contacted by the legal representative of the bank that's holding the funds of the deposed king!


----------



## KmH (Oct 15, 2009)

photographyprogess said:


> Well, there has been some interesting developments in this case. We have come to terms, and the blogger is going to pay me approx. 1500$ as compensation for the use of the photo and the costs to my lawyer.
> 
> It seems like he has spoken with a lawyer, or maybe all three as he claimed he had several lawyers, which told him he would loose the case in the court. So the moral? Don't mess with a Norwegian amateur photographer who's strongheaded.


 :thumbup:


----------



## chammer (Oct 15, 2009)

i had been following along with this as you've been posting. thats awesome that things still can and do work out correctly these days!


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 18, 2009)

skieur said:


> photographyprogess said:
> 
> 
> > In Norway we don't have to register the copyright. The photo is copyrighted as soon as it's published.
> ...



That, my friend, is completely wrong, in the case of any commissioned or ordered work. The following is a direct quote from Section 13.2 of the Copyright Act:

"Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright."


For any commissioned work by any photographer in Canada, their contract with the client (or person/entity ordering the work) *must* state that the photographer is the first owner of copyright (and better yet for the photographer, forfeiture of the client's copyright), otherwise the person or entity paying the photographer owns copyright. (And no, keeping your RAWs and calling that the "original" won't save you in this case. That's why CAPIC and PPOC are pushing to have this legislation changed.)

That said, if the work isn't commissioned, yes, you own copyright.

Furthermore, in the US, it's not a case of you not owning copyright if you don't register. You own copyright as soon as an image is registered, but your ability to sue and claim damages for any infringement is severely limited in the US if your images are not registered. If you don't register your images, even though you hold copyright, you won't be able to take the case to court (talk about messed up).

Edit: I should also mention that worse still for Canadian photographers, is the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1998 in Aubry _v_. Éditions Vice&#8209;Versa, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591 . In short, this case set a nation-wide precedent that taking a picture of someone on the street, in a public area (bloody hell you've gotta be kidding me) can be considered an *invasion of privacy*. The full text of the ruling can be found here. The argument that this ruling only applies to Quebec is false; for one it was made by the Supreme Court, and two, the language of the ruling is far broader than that.

In any case, the best source of information that doesn't require you to have an understanding of law (or at least, far less of one than what one needs to understand the court ruling above), is AmbientLight.ca.


----------



## Plato (Oct 18, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Edit: I should also mention that worse still for Canadian photographers, is the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1998 in Aubry _v_. Éditions Vice&#8209;Versa, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591 . In short, this case set a nation-wide precedent that taking a picture of someone on the street, in a public area (bloody hell you've gotta be kidding me) can be considered an *invasion of privacy*. The full text of the ruling can be found here. The argument that this ruling only applies to Quebec is false; for one it was made by the Supreme Court, and two, the language of the ruling is far broader than that.



There are always conflicting "rights" and that sounds like the result of a photographer or multiple photographers having gone too far.  The pendulum has swung back.


----------



## KmH (Oct 18, 2009)

skieur said:


> photographyprogess said:
> 
> 
> > In Norway we don't have to register the copyright. The photo is copyrighted as soon as it's published.
> ...


In the US, copyright ownership is established at the moment the shutter is released, and unless a written agreement states otherwise, belongs to the photographer for the rest of the photographers life, + 70 years (+50 years in Canada, I believe).

In the US, copyright registration has to do with the type of infringement damage award, statutory or actual, that can be sought in federal court.


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 18, 2009)

Plato said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > Edit: I should also mention that worse still for Canadian photographers, is the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1998 in Aubry _v_. Éditions Vice&#8209;Versa, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591 . In short, this case set a nation-wide precedent that taking a picture of someone on the street, in a public area (bloody hell you've gotta be kidding me) can be considered an *invasion of privacy*. The full text of the ruling can be found here. The argument that this ruling only applies to Quebec is false; for one it was made by the Supreme Court, and two, the language of the ruling is far broader than that.
> ...



Doesn't matter. The point is that the precedent was set that taking pictures of someone in a public area can be considered in a court of law to be an invasion of privacy. The legal system is not a swinging pendulum.


----------



## epp_b (Oct 19, 2009)

Boing Boing: Digital cameras have unique "noise" fingerprints?

Noise profiling.  See an image used without your permission, you can prove you have the original by matching the original photo to the unique noise signature your camera makes.


----------



## Plato (Oct 19, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Plato said:
> 
> 
> > musicaleCA said:
> ...


 
I agree that that was your point.  My point is that it sounds like the result of a photographer or multiple photographers having gone too far.  It's certainly not the first time that one individual or possibly a handful of individuals have ruined things for the majority.  I could care less if you agree with my "swingin pendulum" sentence.


----------



## skieur (Oct 21, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > photographyprogess said:
> ...


 
Irrespective of what you said, you don't have to register a copyright in Canada, since copyright exists as soon as the work is published and there is no system for registering copyright in Canada.

Moreover the main difference in Canada is the need for a photographer's contract, which most professionals employ anyway.

As far as the invasion of privacy is concerned, it really depends on how you take the photo and what is in the frame.

skieur


----------

