DMCA takdown notices

[RFluhver]

I'm not insisting anything.

Yes, people value their work. Please tell me the value of a picture of a painted sign, painted by someone else, in which the painted sign fills the whole frame.

You feel that everything isn't fair game. OK, so if that is your argument, what does the photographer "owe" the sign painter. The photograph was outright theft of his work, according to your definition.

Should the photographer find the sign painter, or the owner of the restaurant, and mail him a check?

I think we all get your point. And on general principles, I tend to agree with you. After all, the photo in question is really of no particular merit.

That said, we are really talking about "value" here. It is quite obvious that this bloke values his photograph highly enough to spend an hour of his time sending out DMCA notices. I say, good luck to the man.

 

[I Love Film]

Good luck, indeed.

 

[finguanzo]

The photo is worth "something" once someone wants to use it. As in the website that did..
No matter how much of a work of art or how much it "sucks"...

But..... what do I know.

 

[karlori]

If you want to play "reductio ad absurdum", how do you know the original photo was taken by the OP and not someone else holding his camera?

Or that he didn't take a photo of another photo.

Now you're trying to be clever, but you are avoiding the question of "what is the photo worth".

The answer to which is "nothing". The value of a worthless photo increases proportionately with the size of the photographer's ego and sense of entitlement.

I love playing those kind of games, after all i am a law student so trying to be(or seem) clever is the job description...
Again, the value is what an interested party is prepared to pay for something, because you or me do not want or need the photograph does not mean that there is not a person on the interwebzz that would be willing to pay some kind of usage fee for the image.
Also what makes you the judge of an images worth more that the OP or other participating posters ????
The fact that there is someone USING the photo means that the photo has enough value to them to publish it on their site, for that some kind of compensation would be in order, be it a simple link back or 59cents if bought as a stock...

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I did once get a lot of my pictures removed from a blog site. In that case, though, the poster had grabbed whole articles from me and presented it all as his own work. 😱

Yes, getting him taken down was pure ego on my part. On the other hand, call it "ego", "face" or what you will, it's a part of everyone's makeup and reasonable grounds for drawing that much used line in the sand. 😉

I feel that phrase "your mileage may vary" applies here, context being everything.

 

[Nomad Z]

Insert 'thin edge of wedge' argument here.

 

[Ollie77]

If you want to play "reductio ad absurdum", how do you know the original photo was taken by the OP and not someone else holding his camera?

Or that he didn't take a photo of another photo.

Now you're trying to be clever, but you are avoiding the question of "what is the photo worth".

The answer to which is "nothing". The value of a worthless photo increases proportionately with the size of the photographer's ego and sense of entitlement.

He just said the photo is worth what anyone is willing to pay for it. And well in a world of 6.5 odd billion people, I would put my money that someone somewhere sees value in it.

Secondly this has nothing to do with the perceived value of the picture, nor your own opinion of its worth, for which is your own opinion and not one that is held by all. This is simple a matter of rights. Plane and simple.

Regardless of it being a picture of a sign and so on and so forth, it is still a picture, it was still taken by the OP, the copyright is still his. Commercial value aside, ego aside and your obvious self absorbed highly opinionated view of other peoples work, the fact remains it is still his image. Not yours, not mine and certainly not a commercial business to make use of without permission.

You start saying one photo is worthless and anyone can use it and you start yourself on a slippery slope. And by your own premise of giving a self opinionated value to this photo(and I am sure others no doubt) I may as well value your work to be worthless and just use it however I feel.

I am guessing you won't appreciate that. Ego aside and all...

Ollie 🙂

 

[I Love Film]

Don't quit your current job.

Time spent = 12 weeks. Legal fees paid to lawyer = $10,000.00 Amount of judgment = 25 cents

Excellent results for lawyers.

I love playing those kind of games, after all i am a law student so trying to be(or seem) clever is the job description...
Again, the value is what an interested party is prepared to pay for something, because you or me do not want or need the photograph does not mean that there is not a person on the interwebzz that would be willing to pay some kind of usage fee for the image.
Also what makes you the judge of an images worth more that the OP or other participating posters ????
The fact that there is someone USING the photo means that the photo has enough value to them to publish it on their site, for that some kind of compensation would be in order, be it a simple link back or 59cents if bought as a stock...

 

[Ollie77]

If you want to play "reductio ad absurdum", how do you know the original photo was taken by the OP and not someone else holding his camera?

Or that he didn't take a photo of another photo.

Now you're trying to be clever, but you are avoiding the question of "what is the photo worth".

The answer to which is "nothing". The value of a worthless photo increases proportionately with the size of the photographer's ego and sense of entitlement.

Don't quit your current job.

Time spent = 12 weeks. Legal fees paid to lawyer = $10,000.00 Amount of judgment = 25 cents

Excellent results for lawyers.

Wow, do you always think you are that much better than others? Pretentious much? Or just plain elitist?

Ollie

 

[I Love Film]

I have extensive experience in the real world of publishing, photo rights and the legal system.

There is a vast difference between what the amateur thinks about how everything works and what really happens.

It has nothing to do with "better than others". I am pointing out the reality of the situation as applies in the real world.

 

[Ollie77]

I have extensive experience in the real world of publishing, photo rights and the legal system.

There is a vast difference between what the amateur thinks about how everything works and what really happens.

It has nothing to do with "better than others". I am pointing out the reality of the situation as applies in the real world.

Applies in reality within the scope of actual copyright law, or the law of the land?

Ollie.

 

[karlori]

Don't quit your current job.

Time spent = 12 weeks. Legal fees paid to lawyer = $10,000.00 Amount of judgment = 25 cents

Excellent results for lawyers.

In European countries not necessary ... You would be surprised, oddly enough i did my IP studies with a B+ end grade.

Time spent 2-3weeks, legal fees very low to low, depending on the way the IP object was used the damages needed to be reimbursed could be quite high... Theoretically, as I don't have any experience yet, still 2more years to go...
But depending on the court and the specific country your mileage and end income may vary...

Oh and I won't reply to this thread anymore and will try to license the image from the OP for web use... Might even use it as an Avatar here...

Best Regards

And don't forget pro bono work which i'd do any day for a photographer with IP problems so dear sir not EVERYTHING revolves around money and ego, at least not in my world or in my head...

 

[I Love Film]

Applies in reality within the scope of actual copyright law, or the law of the land?

Ollie.

Reality as to what will happen in cases such as this. "Actual copyright law" is open to various interpretations.

You have to pick which battles to fight.

"Mr. Dotcom" found out the hard way when New Zealand mounted an armed military operation against him when he got on the wrong side of American Corporate Oligarchs. In that case, a USA court managed to order a smaller country to mount a military offense and asset seizure. So now International Military Police are enforcing American Civil Warrants without regard to borders and jurisdiction. So you see what will happen when someone posts an illegal photo of the "Crusty Crab" signage.

 

[isoterica]

Copyright law actually is not open to interpretation. Copyright law is pretty specific. So are the methods for submitting work for copyright. Just saying "This is copyrighted work" and slapping on a symbol generally isn't enough from what I have read and learned from other photographers. A copyright symbol and associated verbiage however does notify the prospective 'borrower' that there could be recourse if they use that work without permission- meaning, they don't know if you have registered your work or not so use thereof is at best a gamble. This 'should' thwart the average man having respect for the works of others-- but there is also the 'other' average man who doesn't give a damn.

There are also several levels of Creative Commons Copyright that many artists and photographers are taking advantage of allowing everything from the re-posting of their work with credit and link back to manipulation of the original image provided credit again is given. This type of copyright is like free publicity however it has been noted that some sites employing the use of CC images do gain more traffic and sometimes links back doesn't necessarily help gain the original owner of the work similar recognition. Having your work shown on a high traffic site doesn't mean your site by connection will become as popular. Sometimes in fact the reverse can happen, you actually lose traffic if people can see your work.. just anywhere. Still, if just getting your work out there gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, this is a good way to go.

To what extent a maligned artist will go in order to receive results, ie the removal of content from a sight and/or monetary compensation and whether or not said act will actually be rewarded in a suitable manner to him-- now that is open for debate, his own- whether or not it is worth the effort or possible funds required to prosecute. Regardless of the images perceived worth, someone took something from another person without permission or even the common decency of giving credit. Assigning 'ego' to it or 'worthlessness' is only opinion and really doesn't belong in what now seems to be a debate because of these interjected opinions. Constructive suggestion would have been a better response to the OP. Is it a battle worth fighting? That is wholly based on the original photographers perspective. Will an attorney willingly jump in to defend in that fight, that depends on his perspective. But is it still theft-- indeed it is. If something is mine-- it is NOT yours.

 

[I Love Film]

If something is mine-- it is NOT yours.

Tell that to the IRS and to the Department of Handouts.

 

[isoterica]

Tell that to the IRS and to the Department of Handouts.

That is an entirely different subject-- and I don't agree with that bs either. Unfortunately the people holding their hands out are becoming more numerous insisting that they are entitled to what many of us barely scraping by, have made for ourselves. Since when has anything in life been an entitlement. The squirrel that doesn't save nuts before winter starves. Such a pity that no one is willing to work for anything anymore. More pitiful is that they drive cadillacs and use food stamps to purchase liquor while we keep mending our beater cars and if we want a drink, after a double shift of work of course, have to pay for it. And that has nothing to do with copyright either but.. yeah, I hear you there.

 

[mdarnton]

I'm not taking a side in this issue, except to say that the internet is forcing some interesting questions to come up.

On the one side there are people who think that every time they fart, someone should pay them, and on the other there are some who really are being stolen from. Like a lot of problems, I don't think there's an easy answer, but the least satisfactory answer for everyone is to leave it completely up to the originator, who is the least likely to be unbiased.

I suspect that there's not going to be a fair resolution of this problem. There certainly will NOT be while big media companies are being permitted and encouraged to rewrite the laws totally in their favor, to the exclusion of everyone else's interests. To see how this works, you need only to look at what ASCAP does for, no, cross that out, TO independent musicians who want to play their own original material in public places.

 

[redisburning]

something is not worth "what someone is willing to pay for it".

a demand curve is a schedule of people's reservation prices. if you apply such simply logic to it each subsequent copy of the item is worth less than the first.

 

[Teuthida]

, While visiting the Czech Republic a few years ago, I ran across an Art House Theater in Brno rhat had a big Poster hanging on their building of two kids in Batman costumes. Really cool picture. Just so happens I took it in 1971 when I was 12 years old.

Whaddya gonna do? Nothin. Might as well take it as a compliment.

 

[finguanzo]

I dont think the op is trying to make this a case that goes to the supreme court. He just does not want his picture used without permission... done... is that so bad..?