# HELP! Photo used without permission and pay by company



## DFaltPhoto

Hey all! 

Im seeking advice as I have recently had one of my photos used without my permission or without pay on a large website. The website is WAVE RIDING VEHICLES and the image is used full size on the homepage. It's the picture of the surfer riding a green surfboard. Can't miss it!

I have prepared an image use license agreement and invoice for them but wanted to seek advice from experienced pros out there on these situations. I have recently sold two images to them and received payment and signed agreements for both. 

My questions- 

What would you charge for this? 

How would you go about it?


----------



## MOREGONE

Hi welcome to the forum. Thanks for double posting you firsts post(s). 

Here are the cliff notes of the feedback you will get. Get a lawyer.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan

Ouch man. Better go into the internet archive and see how long they've been using that image and bill them for it. That is their entire website, that image, so I wouldn't be friendly with the price. 

And yeah, lawyer up.


----------



## robbins.photo

Well you mentioned you sold images to them previously, before you lawyer up maybe contact them first and work under the assumption that it was an honest mistake.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan

i went back and looked, looks like they've only been using it on the home page recently.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan

robbins.photo said:


> Well you mentioned you sold images to them previously, before you lawyer up maybe contact them first and work under the assumption that it was an honest mistake.



Sue first, ask questions later
- Murica


----------



## CAP

They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.


For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.


----------



## spacefuzz

CAP said:


> They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.
> 
> 
> For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.



um no, thats not how copyright works.


----------



## CAP

spacefuzz said:


> CAP said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.
> 
> 
> For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um no, thats not how copyright works.
Click to expand...



I consulted my lawyer on that and taking a screen shot is the same as if i where to take a picture of my laptop screen with your image on it using my camera.

His comment was that once i have captured it is no longer a original and there for not copyrighted.

I wish you where right but not according to my lawyer.

[FONT=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]When you photography a statue or monument, or even a painting at a museum or other [/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]photographers work[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans-serif], you are, in fact, creating a derivative work of copyrighted material, which is legal.[/FONT]


----------



## robbins.photo

Majeed Badizadegan said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you mentioned you sold images to them previously, before you lawyer up maybe contact them first and work under the assumption that it was an honest mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sue first, ask questions later
> - Murica
Click to expand...


Lol.. right.. silly me.  Ok, well if were going to do this right we'll need some C-4, various small arms and a rabid weasel.


----------



## Tailgunner

CAP said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CAP said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.
> 
> 
> For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um no, thats not how copyright works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I consulted my lawyer on that and taking a screen shot is the same as if i where to take a picture of my laptop screen with your image on it using my camera.
> 
> His comment was that once i have captured it is no longer a original and there for not copyrighted.
> 
> I wish you where right but not according to my lawyer.
> 
> When you photography a statue or monument, or even a painting at a museum or other photographers work, you are, in fact, creating a derivative work of copyrighted material, which is legal.
Click to expand...


Basically your attorney told you nothing can be copyrighted and everything can be legally stolen. I personally would seek better legal advice.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan

CAP said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CAP said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.
> 
> 
> For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um no, thats not how copyright works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I consulted my lawyer on that and taking a screen shot is the same as if i where to take a picture of my laptop screen with your image on it using my camera.
> 
> His comment was that once i have captured it is no longer a original and there for not copyrighted.
> 
> I wish you where right but not according to my lawyer.
> 
> When you photography a statue or monument, or even a painting at a museum or other photographers work, you are, in fact, creating a derivative work of copyrighted material, which is legal.
Click to expand...


Your lawyer needs to brush up on copyright law.


----------



## CAP

Nope,  I am with you all on this but its just done not work that way.

&#8220;If the photo is in the public domain, you can take a picture of it, you can reproduce it,&#8221; said Chris Sprigman, an intellectual property law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who has written on copyright issues for the Freakonomics blog.

The web is a public domain and their fore that statement apply's. 


P.S my lawyer is one of my best friends from when we where in college at university of Florida and i called him and he still says that the above apply's in florida any ways.


----------



## spacefuzz

CAP said:


> Nope, I am with you all on this but if just done not work that way.
> 
> &#8220;If the photo is in the public domain, you can take a picture of it, you can reproduce it,&#8221; said Chris Sprigman, an intellectual property law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who has written on copyright issues for the Freakonomics blog.
> 
> The web is a public domain and their fore that statement apply's.




Still nope.  As an example of case law refuting your claim see Sculptor Awarded $685,000 After Photo of Korean War Memorial Used on Stamp

You need to get a better lawyer.


----------



## The_Traveler

You are misunderstanding the meaning of public domain.


----------



## tirediron

I very much doubt that your website is in the public domain.  To echo others, get another lawyer!


----------



## CAP

Well every thing is in binary when you go far enough and my photo of your photos one and zeros are not the same so mine is different there for not yours.


----------



## manaheim

Your lawyer being your best friend is a detriment to his credibility- not a booster for it. Not because of anything you or your friend did, but "best friend" is not a credential for excellence in anything except friendship, and stating it as one kind of diminishes my impression of your judgment. 

Your friend may be right... but I kind of doubt it. The entire world would be reselling images that they don't own. There would be websites up all over the place selling these images.


----------



## CAP

manaheim said:


> Your lawyer being your best friend is a detriment to his credibility- not a booster for it. Not because of anything you or your friend did, but "best friend" is not a credential for excellence in anything except friendship, and stating it as one kind of diminishes my impression of your judgment.
> 
> Your friend may be right... but I kind of doubt it. The entire world would be reselling images that they don't own. There would be websites up all over the place selling these images.




I am with you mana on this one.  There are so many angles this topic could be argued from so i will leave it at that.


----------



## manaheim

Worthwhile read from the NY Times on the topic.

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010...hotograph-artwork/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


----------



## astroNikon

Wow.  Why'd I bother buying a camera.  I could have the best images *ever* just by doing a screen capture.


But for the OP ???   
get a lawyer
or chat with them first becz they have had pre-existing contractual terms on former sales.  Kinda blatant though posting it as the main image on their website.


they probably did an iPhone screen snapshot .... (or someone else did and gave it/sold it to them).  So I would kindly ask them where they got the photo first ...
http://
static.squarespace.com/static/520ac1fee4b021ed6a298f8b/t/5370ebf5e4b0edb14ea86d2b/1399909374350/HEALEY%20FALTER%20WEB33.png

I did a screen snap shot too .. so now it's mine  


btw, that's an awesome picture :thumbsup:


----------



## KmH

CAP said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CAP said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.
> 
> 
> For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um no, thats not how copyright works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I consulted my lawyer on that and taking a screen shot is the same as if i where to take a picture of my laptop screen with your image on it using my camera.
> 
> His comment was that once i have captured it is no longer a original and there for not copyrighted.
> 
> I wish you where right but not according to my lawyer.
> 
> When you photography a statue or monument, or even a painting at a museum or other photographers work, you are, in fact, creating a derivative work of copyrighted material, which is legal.
Click to expand...

You might want to look for a new attorney. One who knows what they are taking about, or is better at explaining how copyright pertains to derivatives to you.



> http://copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
> To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a
> preexisting &#8220;work&#8221; *and add new original copyrightable authorship to that work*.



Shepard Fairy got bad legal advice too and found out the hard way.
Barack Obama "Hope" poster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fairly has made a habit of it too. To the point his attorneys fired him as a client.
Shepard Fairey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## robbins.photo

tirediron said:


> I very much doubt that your website is in the public domain.  To echo others, get another lawyer!



Ok, but we don't really need a lawyer.  We could use a rabid weasel, however.  They are not as easy to come by as you might think.  I checked Costco already, wouldn't you know it, sold out.


----------



## manaheim

To the OP... if you've done business before with them, I would go in assuming it's an honest mistake (as robbins suggested). Ping them and say "Hey, I noticed you're using one of my images on your main site. That's awesome. Would you like me to give you a quote for use there? Are there any other places you'd like to use it? I can put all of that into the usage agreement."

If they respond back and say "Yeah, please do!", perfect. You've kept a customer happy, very gently pointed out to them their little miss, and get a few bucks in the process.  If they respond back and say "No!", then you have a very reasonable way to say "Oh. Well, that's totally fine and I understand, but I hope you'll understand that I'd need you to stop using the image if you don't want to license it."

If THAT doesn't go well... THEN you consult a lawyer. I highly doubt, however, that it will go that far.

Trust me from being on the wrong end of this process... you never get anywhere by suing your customers.


----------



## tirediron

robbins.photo said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I very much doubt that your website is in the public domain.  To echo others, get another lawyer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but we don't really need a lawyer.  We could use a rabid weasel, however.  They are not as easy to come by as you might think.  I checked Costco already, wouldn't you know it, sold out.
Click to expand...

Did you check the ferret aisle too?


----------



## tirediron

manaheim said:


> To the OP... if you've done business before with them, I would go in assuming it's an honest mistake (as robbins suggested). Ping them and say "Hey, I noticed you're using one of my images on your main site. That's awesome. Would you like me to give you a quote for use there? Are there any other places you'd like to use it? I can put all of that into the usage agreement."
> 
> If they respond back and say "Yeah, please do!", perfect. You've kept a customer happy, very gently pointed out to them their little miss, and get a few bucks in the process.  If they respond back and say "No!", then you have a very reasonable way to say "Oh. Well, that's totally fine and I understand, but I hope you'll understand that I'd need you to stop using the image if you don't want to license it."
> 
> If THAT doesn't go well... THEN you consult a lawyer. I highly doubt, however, that it will go that far.
> 
> Trust me from being on the wrong end of this process... you never get anywhere by suing your customers.



Best advice so far!


----------



## manaheim

I just rock.


----------



## D-B-J

manaheim said:


> To the OP... if you've done business before with them, I would go in assuming it's an honest mistake (as robbins suggested). Ping them and say "Hey, I noticed you're using one of my images on your main site. That's awesome. Would you like me to give you a quote for use there? Are there any other places you'd like to use it? I can put all of that into the usage agreement."
> 
> If they respond back and say "Yeah, please do!", perfect. You've kept a customer happy, very gently pointed out to them their little miss, and get a few bucks in the process.  If they respond back and say "No!", then you have a very reasonable way to say "Oh. Well, that's totally fine and I understand, but I hope you'll understand that I'd need you to stop using the image if you don't want to license it."
> 
> If THAT doesn't go well... THEN you consult a lawyer. I highly doubt, however, that it will go that far.
> 
> Trust me from being on the wrong end of this process... you never get anywhere by suing your customers.



Not that I've had much, or any, experience with this, but this seems like the best way of going about it.  IF it was an honest mistake, you don't want to sue immediately and assume that they were trying to slight you.  


To the OP, if it counts, it's a SWEEET image.


----------



## robbins.photo

tirediron said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I very much doubt that your website is in the public domain.  To echo others, get another lawyer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but we don't really need a lawyer.  We could use a rabid weasel, however.  They are not as easy to come by as you might think.  I checked Costco already, wouldn't you know it, sold out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you check the ferret aisle too?
Click to expand...


Twice.  All they had left was a Badger with the flu.  I mean seriously.  You can't half arse these things.. lol


----------



## Braineack

Here I thought cap was making fun of the Google maps "photographer"


----------



## vintagesnaps

This company already used two of your photos? Then somehow obtained a third and used it without permission or compensation?? Their site shows (edit) a few locations as well as numerous shops that stock their products across the US, if they're that large a company I'd expect they would know they need to pay for usage - especially since they paid for the previous photos. 

Try looking at American Society of Media Photographers or PPA for business info. for photographers. You'd need to determine payment and how long usage will be for that photo; I'd also take into account it's featured on their main page in promoting their business.


----------



## Tailgunner

CAP said:


> Nope,  I am with you all on this but its just done not work that way.
> 
> If the photo is in the public domain, you can take a picture of it, you can reproduce it, said Chris Sprigman, an intellectual property law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who has written on copyright issues for the Freakonomics blog.
> 
> The web is a public domain and their fore that statement apply's.
> 
> 
> P.S my lawyer is one of my best friends from when we where in college at university of Florida and i called him and he still says that the above apply's in florida any ways.



Just because s/he's your friend, doesn't make them right. All one has to do in order to disprove your attorney friend is simply review how many people who has actually won their copyright law suit cases. It happens all the time. In fact, people make a good living out of buying up copyrights and suing people over copyright infringements. Why do you think internet forums are strict about only posting images or content that YOU OWN? That is because enough forums and blogs has been sued over it. 

Again, I would consult a different attorney.


----------



## tirediron

robbins.photo said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but we don't really need a lawyer.  We could use a rabid weasel, however.  They are not as easy to come by as you might think.  I checked Costco already, wouldn't you know it, sold out.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you check the ferret aisle too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twice.  All they had left was a Badger with the flu.  I mean seriously.  You can't half arse these things.. lol
Click to expand...

Costco is sooooooooo over-rated! :roll:


----------



## Tee

We could all take to their Facebook and Twitter feeds and storm the internet with pitchforks.  That's the new American way.


----------



## The_Traveler

CAP said:


> There are so many angles this topic could be argued from so i will leave it at that.



No, you are just plain misunderstanding here.
Where you have gone astray is your understanding of 'in the public domain.'

"Works in the *public domain* are those whose intellectual property rights have expired,[SUP][1][/SUP] have been forfeited,[SUP][2][/SUP] or are inapplicable."
_Wikipedia and the USPTO_

It does not mean work that is displayed in public.

If your friend thinks that anything that is displayed in public is therefore free to copyright, he also is sadly mistaken.


----------



## KmH

If you haven't already, register your copyright ASAP.
What's An Infringement Worth? | Photo Attorney
Help! I've Been Infringed! | Photo Attorney


----------



## hamlet

CAP said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CAP said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.
> 
> 
> For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um no, thats not how copyright works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I consulted my lawyer on that and taking a screen shot is the same as if i where to take a picture of my laptop screen with your image on it using my camera.
> 
> His comment was that once i have captured it is no longer a original and there for not copyrighted.
> 
> I wish you where right but not according to my lawyer.
> 
> *When you photography a statue or monument, or even a painting at a museum or other photographers work, you are, in fact, creating a derivative work of copyrighted material, which is legal.*
Click to expand...


Legal in America perhaps, but not in Belgium. If you photograph any of the above mentioned things, you are in fact not the owner of the picture. If you want to use it or make money off of it, you must first get permission from the person who owns the artwork/building/thing. Otherwise you get in big trouble if you get caught.


----------



## robbins.photo

Tee said:


> We could all take to their Facebook and Twitter feeds and storm the internet with pitchforks. That's the new American way.



Well we could.. had anyone bothered to reorder pitchforks from the last time we got a mob whipped up into a frenzy.  But nope.. storage locker is pretty much cleared out.  And  you just can't hand out sporks from the cafeteria for a thing  like that.  I mean seriously, who storms the castle armed with a spork?


----------



## hamlet

manaheim said:


> Your lawyer being your best friend is a detriment to his credibility- not a booster for it. Not because of anything you or your friend did, but "best friend" is not a credential for excellence in anything except friendship, and stating it as one kind of diminishes my impression of your judgment.
> 
> Your friend may be right... but I kind of doubt it. The entire world would be reselling images that they don't own. There would be websites up all over the place selling these images.



If a photographer can own a photo of a statue or something, how is it that someone cannot own a picture of your picture they have taken? This is all so confusing with different rules for different places even.


----------



## Braineack

hamlet said:


> If a photographer can own a photo of a statue or something, how is it that someone cannot own a picture of your picture they have taken? This is all so confusing with different rules for different places even.



public domain vs derivative copyright.


----------



## hamlet

I don't understand those terms. I know you folks gotta eat, but it all just seems hypocritical to me. I'll assume that i'm ignorant on this matter till someone actually explains why my question doesn't make sense.


----------



## The_Traveler

One can take a picture for him or herself and display it, post it, etc. if it is in the public space and but cannot reproduce it for other reasons like selling or marketing.


----------



## Braineack

hamlet said:


> I don't understand those terms. I know you folks gotta eat, but it all just seems hypocritical to me. I'll assume that i'm ignorant on this matter till someone actually explains why my question doesn't make sense.



google the terms and become less ignorant of them.


----------



## tirediron

Braineack said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand those terms. I know you folks gotta eat, but it all just seems hypocritical to me. I'll assume that i'm ignorant on this matter till someone actually explains why my question doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> google the terms and become less ignorant of them.
Click to expand...


Mehh.... you can lead a horse to water...


----------



## Braineack

here's some water: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf


----------



## andywag

CAP said:


> They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.
> 
> 
> For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.




What? WHAT?? WHAT???

Do you have the slightest idea how copyright actually works??


----------



## andywag

CAP said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CAP said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.
> 
> 
> For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get a new lawyer. This one does not know what he/she is talking about.
> 
> 
> um no, thats not how copyright works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I consulted my lawyer on that and taking a screen shot is the same as if i where to take a picture of my laptop screen with your image on it using my camera.
> 
> His comment was that once i have captured it is no longer a original and there for not copyrighted.
> 
> I wish you where right but not according to my lawyer.
> 
> When you photography a statue or monument, or even a painting at a museum or other photographers work, you are, in fact, creating a derivative work of copyrighted material, which is legal.
Click to expand...


Get a new lawyer. This one obviously knows absolutely NOTHING about copyright.
Try that one in court and you better have very deep pockets.


----------



## vintagesnaps

Hamlet, I own any picture I take and have the copyright to it. I don't have to register it with the copyright office but that would make it easier to show my ownership if I ever needed to do that. 

The difference is in how I might use a photo that I took. I can just keep it and enjoy looking at it as part of my personal collection. If I wanted to sell an art print that is intended for the buyer's personal use (to hang it on the wall) I probably wouldn't need to get a release signed by the subject. If I wanted to license usage, that's often for a company or a business to use for example for marketing or advertising or commercial purposes, so I'd need to get a model or a property release signed to allow me to make money from using the person's image or an image of their property. 

The difference with a statue could be that I'm not just photographing someone's property, I'm photographing someone else's artwork. That could get into being an infringement of their copyright, it would depend I think on where it is - if it's on public property it might be fine to photograph it as part of a scene including a building (and possibly sell a print or license it if I get a release signed). 

But I couldn't photograph someone else's photo and use it in any way - that's just making a copy of their photograph. I suppose I could take a picture of a photo that's framed and on display if cameras are allowed at an exhibit.

I'm trying to think of an example of something in the public domain. Probably a picture of a historic or famous statue that was made many, many years ago and is well documented as to who sculpted it and where it's located etc. (like going to the Lincoln memorial in DC and taking a picture of it). It would have been photographed countless times and been published in countless history and art books and you could probably take a photo of it (if that's allowed wherever it's displayed). Any copyright that existed (if there ever was one) probably would have long since expired.


----------



## MOREGONE

Look at this fruitful discussion for a poster who probably will never see the responses.


----------



## CAP

Ok well my statements may have been miss interpreted or i may have incorrectly phrased them towards the context i was applying them to.

So let me clarify what i had attempted to imply through my apparent outlandish comments,  Before you collect your pitch forks. 

First off let me start off by saying that laws can not keep up with technological advancements of the world.  Now that being said, I was just trying making my point that there are many avenues and methods that both sides in a copyright case that both sides could take regardless of who is at fault or who allegedly do this or that.  But what i am saying is nothing will ever be full proof there will always be a another way round it or loop or something that ether side could use or exploit.  You all also have to consider the determination factor regardless of whose wrong or right the side that apply's the most determination and effort into there goal will generally come out on top.    

My friend and college buddy who has recently won a multi-million dollar copyright case in US courts on copyright works.  He argued that the two works where not the same to your eye both works looked and felt exactly the same but that when you where to look at the original form of of the image that the ones and zeros where not the same and there for there copyright was not applicable the to the work as it was actually different.  So if i take a photo of your photo and they both look the same but truly mine is different if you look at the code of it and the judge felt the same way and he won.

So they used your photo without your consent, that's wrong and you should be compensated.  I was not trying to draw away from that fact what they did you use was wrong. If one wanted to use any copyrighted image for his or her self for any reason there are plenty of ways he could do it and there is nothing you could do about it.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PvaC8eRNF...6uCYU4ifQ8/s1600/Simpsons+Movie+Angry+Mob.jpg

Well any ways back to work.


----------



## robbins.photo

CAP said:


> Ok well my statements may have been miss interpreted or i may have incorrectly phrased them towards the context i was applying them to.
> 
> So let me clarify what i had attempted to imply through my apparent outlandish comments,  Before you collect your pitch forks.
> 
> First off let me start off by saying that laws can not keep up with technological advancements of the world.  Now that being said, I was just trying making my point that there are many avenues and methods that both sides in a copyright case that both sides could take regardless of who is at fault or who allegedly do this or that.  But what i am saying is nothing will ever be full proof there will always be a another way round it or loop or something that ether side could use or exploit.  You all also have to consider the determination factor regardless of whose wrong or right the side that apply's the most determination and effort into there goal will generally come out on top.



Dude.. seriously? Do you have any idea how much time it took me to pass out that many sporks?

Rotfl


----------



## Tailgunner

robbins.photo said:


> CAP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok well my statements may have been miss interpreted or i may have incorrectly phrased them towards the context i was applying them to.
> 
> So let me clarify what i had attempted to imply through my apparent outlandish comments,  Before you collect your pitch forks.
> 
> First off let me start off by saying that laws can not keep up with technological advancements of the world.  Now that being said, I was just trying making my point that there are many avenues and methods that both sides in a copyright case that both sides could take regardless of who is at fault or who allegedly do this or that.  But what i am saying is nothing will ever be full proof there will always be a another way round it or loop or something that ether side could use or exploit.  You all also have to consider the determination factor regardless of whose wrong or right the side that apply's the most determination and effort into there goal will generally come out on top.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude.. seriously? Do you have any idea how much time it took me to pass out that many sporks?
> 
> Rotfl
Click to expand...


Wut? I didn't get my Spork?


----------



## dweazel

Well.... i did qualify as a lawyer...and i did happen to lecture in copyright law at one time...

"So if i take a photo of your photo and they both look the same but truly mine is different if you look at the code of it and the judge felt the same way and he won."

ha ha..... ha hahahhhahahhahhhhaaa

stop it..... no please.. no....  i'm dying of laughter! (collapses on floor).


----------



## KmH

CAP said:


> My friend and college buddy who has recently won a multi-million dollar copyright case in US courts on copyright works.  He argued that the two works where not the same to your eye both works looked and felt exactly the same but that when you where to look at the original form of of the image that the ones and zeros where not the same and there for there copyright was not applicable the to the work as it was actually different.


What court was that action heard in, and what was the case number, so we can read the court's decision?

I follow copyright court decisions and haven't heard of any case that was decided based on the digital numbers in an image file.

The case number info would look like this - Case 1:08-cv-00067-LPS-CJB Document 230 Filed 10/11/13


----------



## robbins.photo

Tailgunner said:


> Wut? I didn't get my Spork?



You don't get a spork till you sign the waiver.  You don't think I'd hand out pointy stuff to this group of slappys without making them all sign waivers do you?  Talk about a lawsuit waiting for a place to happen...

rotfl


----------



## Tailgunner

robbins.photo said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wut? I didn't get my Spork?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get a spork till you sign the waiver.  You don't think I'd hand out pointy stuff to this group of slappys without making them all sign waivers do you?  Talk about a lawsuit waiting for a place to happen...
> 
> rotfl
Click to expand...


Naw Dawg, you can trust me. I'm safe...well, there was that time I almost cut my finger off with a spoon, talking about a close call.


----------



## The_Traveler

What Happens When a Supermodel Violates Your Copyright


----------



## wallstreetfool

I see what you did there OP - you're one sneaky little, you know what!


----------

