Designer Accused of Copying His Own Work By Stock Art Website 380
the_harlequin writes "A successful designer, who has a showcase of his own work available online, has had a stock image site accuse him of copyright infringement over his own illustrations, citing damages of $18,000. The story doesn't end there; the stock photo site hired lawyers, who have contacted the original designer's clients. The lawyers told them the designer is being investigated for copyright infringement and their logos might be copied, thus damaging his reputation. 'My theory is that someone copied my artwork, separated them from any typography and then posted them for sale on the stock site. Someone working for the site either saw my [LogoPond] showcase or was alerted to the similarities. They then prepared the bill and sent it to me. The good thing is that the bill gives me a record of every single image they took from me. That helps me gather dates, sketches, emails, etc. to help me prove my case. The bad thing is that despite my explanations and proof, they will not let this go.'"
Countersuit (Score:3, Interesting)
Sue them back for damages and that all their customers cease immidiately from using his work. That should get you a very concerned lawyer on the other side of the table who's probably ready to settle.
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Interesting)
I say he should have waited for them to level all the charges they could against him, before turning the arrow the other way. Or maybe he did. Either way, it'll be really hard for them to back down on the bill after they themselves calculated it. (realizing the biller and the infringer are not the same entity, but they're acting together it appears)
Re:Countersuit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:He needs to get a good lawyer, countersue... (Score:5, Interesting)
He should contract a law firm. This is too big to cheap out on, and a diverse set of skills will be needed to maximize the severe punishment that can potentialy be levied against these guys.
You don't want the countersuit to be a single-shot weapon. You want it to be an agonizing series of laser guided charges that simply wont go away no matter how this company tries to weasel out of the situation they have put themselves in.
How do you prove you created the content (Score:4, Interesting)
You could register the copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
While you don't have to register copyrights to *have* a copyright, there is a mechanism to register copyrights with the US Copyright Office [copyright.gov] (well, if you're in another country, this option would probably not be available to you, though I'm not sure). When you register the copyright, you upload a copy of the work that you are registering.
While it is possible for a copyright registration to be overturned by a court, if presented with solid evidence (as in the SCO vs. Novell case where The SCO Group tried to fraudulently register copyrights), my understanding is that the registration puts the proceedings in your favor - if you hold a registration, the court assumes you own it until proven otherwise - you don't have to prove that you own the copyright, the other party has to prove you do NOT own the copyright). The registration also increases the amount of damages you can get in a court action (I think you can get triple damages plus attorney's fees).
It does cost money to register copyrights though - I think it's $35 for online registration, so if an artist has hundreds of small items they wish to copyright, it could get expensive to register them all individually. It might, however, be possible to collectively register them (that is, to have 100 or 200 photos as part of a single copyright registration), but I'm not sure about that.
Outside of copyright registration, I think the way courts decide copyright ownership is based upon someone providing the earliest proof of publication (though I'm not sure - I am not a layer, this isn't legal advice, etc, etc). If you can prove that you had published the image on flickr or some other site at an earlier date than the other party can show proof of their publication, that might do it for you.
I really think, though, that more open source and creative commons software/content producers should register their copyrights. It really does provide you a certain wall of protection against
Other than, I'm not sure what you can do. Registration of your copyrights is probably the best way to give you a strong case though.
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:that was fast (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying it's right, but it's the way it will probably work out.
Here's how I understand the case. If you step back a little, it will all be clear.
"A", the artist, created the work.
"B", the 3rd party thief, posed as an original artist, and submitted them to "C" for sale.
"C", the stock photo site.
"C" purchased the images from "B", probably under an exclusive license. "C" therefore has legitimate claim to the images. They found out that "A" has the same images on his site, so they filed the complaint. This is perfectly legitimate.
"A" countered the claim saying that he was the original artist.
"C" is still sitting on an invoice, a paid receipt, a signed (electronically, probably) contract saying that they own the photos.
Who do you believe? The person that you've done business with, or a third party?
This unfortunately happens all the time. I was talking to someone who showed me their "original web site, created by a local graphics art firm." I immediately recognized several images as stock photos, and the layout looked like a template. A few days later while doing unrelated work, I found the template on templatemonster.com. Ahhh, it was a template, that the local firm populated with their specific details (we do.. our number is.. email us at..). They confronted the local firm about it. They insisted that it was all original work, even though it was easy to see otherwise. The site owner chose to believe the local firm. Why? Because they had done business with them, and I was just a new guy in the picture.
I could copy down a handful of photos from a stock image place, upload them to somewhere that I had cooperation with, that would put whatever timestamps I wished on, and then say "Oh no, I made those last year". Does that make me right? Nope.
A good thief wouldn't turn around and say "oh ya, I stole it, sorry 'bout that." They would defend their story until it was proven completely wrong. I worked in a jail once (long long ago), and I was told on day 1, "every person in here will tell you how they're innocent." Either the legal system is really screwed, or liars and thieves are frequently one in the same. Heck, even in a traffic stop, people lie.
"Do you know how fast you were going?"
"ya, about 55."
"no you were doing 85. 30mph faster than the rest of the cars on the road."
Is "C" really liable for damages on property that they bought in good faith? No. They can be sued. They will probably agree to remove the copyrighted images and turn over the contact information "B". That won't necessarily get you very far though. What if the only contact information on "B" is a Hotmail address, and a PayPal account, which indicates the owner is in Russia? Good luck suing him.
Good faith goes a long way in court, especially where there is a paper trail.
The same applies to other things.
If you go online and buy say a new computer. It's 20% less than retail, so you assume you're dealing with a legitimate wholesaler. As it turns out, that person worked in a computer store, stole the computer, and sold it online. Do you believe you are criminally or civilly liable? Because it is stolen merchandise, you may have to forfeit the property, but you likely won't be criminally liable because you bought it in good faith. On the other hand, if you knew the person was a thief, you'd run into a long list of legal problems.
Another way to look at it is, go buy something at a pawn shop. How do you know that "B", the person who sold it to the pawn shop, was actually the owner of that property? You don't. You do hold onto the receipt, just in case. It proves your innocence (or at least helps to establish it).
Re:People stealing things (Score:4, Interesting)
I had a friend in college who wrote some spreadsheet templates to help manage oil storage tanks. His system kept track of dates of filling, draining, age, litres added, removed, type of oil and so on. It genuinely helped his customers save money as they wouldn't forget about slightly filled tanks which would end up being drained rather than used.
Next thing he knew, another guy was selling the exact same spreadsheet templates but with a couple of the columns swapped around. There really wasn't anything he could do.
Another story was about a guy who wrote an expert system for fixing the motors of train set engines. His system required that you measure the voltages and currents through different parts of the motor. His expert system would then tell you what was wrong with the motor. He was giving this away for free to hobbyists, until someone else figured out that the same expert system would help identify faults with industrial winches and motors, and was charging consultancy fees.
Re:that was fast (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, they sell OK cables and have good support. What's not to like?
This is a sign of the times. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Countersuit (Score:5, Interesting)
Precedent says otherwise. In a very similar case, data files from the open-source JMRI project were stolen by a crook named Matt Katzer who runs a competing company KAM Enterprises or KAMIND. Katzer also listened in to a hobbyist mailing list and patented things that the developers of various similar projects mentioned there. Katzer hired a lawyer to contact the lead JMRI developer's workplace and accuse him of being a patent and copyright thief. The JMRI developer sued for libel and was fined $30,000 in "attorney's fees" under anti-SLAPP laws.
More information about the JMRI case is at the JMRI page [sourceforge.net]. The case has been covered on Slashdot before [slashdot.org]. Katzer is currently threatening JMRI with $6,000,000 in fines for copyright infringement plus three years of legal fees.
Re:Suprised this isn't more common (Score:4, Interesting)
Shouldn't they have made 100% sure before badmouthing him to anyone who'd listen?
don't jump to conclusions (Score:3, Interesting)
Without actually looking at the evidence, nobody can tell who's right and who's wrong. It's plausible that someone stole this guy's art and uploaded it, it's plausible that the stock company ripped him off deliberately, and it's also plausible that he uploaded the images himself to sell them multiple times.
Let the courts work it out: that's what they are there for.
(As far as copyright is concerned, once you sell the rights to your works, you don't own them anymore.)
It's time for digital timestamps. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's time for government-run digital timestamp services that will sign any hashcode-sized number and return it to you via email, and to require that any assertion of copyright over digital material include a timestamped signature for its hash.
Leave it, as a last resort, to the courts to decide whether an allegedly infringing copy is similar enough, but make the copyright precedence if they are so a simple matter of comparing timestamps.
Re:that was fast (Score:3, Interesting)
What is more entertaining is when they use a subset of the picture, thinking it's the whole thing. "I have this." Well, I have the original photo, uncropped, plus the other 500+ pictures shot during that shoot. What do you have? :)
My other pictures have always been my proof. Of course, I thumbnail them if I ever want or need to show someone, so they get a little 320x240 picture, and I'm still sitting on the full resolution picture. :)
Remarkably Similar to MS-DOS & CP/M (Score:2, Interesting)
FYI there's a pattern to this sort of behavior from Gates; Years before, he lifted the "Tiny Basic" source code from a user's group magazine and sold it to Tandy (as in Radio Shack) for their computers.
I won't go into other details of their behavior like what happened with OS/2, Stac, DR-DOS, Netscape, but Microsoft has a pattern of stealing other people's work.
Re:that was fast (Score:3, Interesting)
I still have my "negatives" in my Digital photography. the photos that leave me are NEVER in the original size and format. You as a customer get a re-sized image that will never be larger than 12 megapixels, has a digital stenography mark in it and All the EXIF data is wiped.
Oh, if you are my customer and asking for 20X30 prints, you gotta buy them from me, or buy the copyright to the RAW image. Otherwise you'll never get more than a 12megapixel image from me.
Honestly, nobody needs bigger than 8Megapixel Images anyways... even full color magazine spreads don't needs more than that.
Re:Not the first time I heard it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Interesting)
it sounds like this could be awfully expensive in lawyer fees.
I have it on good authority [scrivenerserror.com] that in copyright cases in the US one can usually claim back your fees from the infringer and/or false accuser of infringement. If the contributor is correct in his assertion that he has copyright and can prove it then it will probably be the stock photo company that pays those fees.
Re:hire a lawyer ASAP (Score:3, Interesting)
As the parent said, if you don't register, you are not eligible to claim statutory damages, only actual damages.
Re:hit them back (Score:4, Interesting)
If justice is served, this artist will never have to work again.
If they can justify $18k for the graphics he was using, then surely they're selling his work to a greater frequency. Not only are they stealing from him directly, but they're accusing him of stealing, as well as slandering him to all of his customers. That is a BIG no-no.
However, I'm not holding my breath that he'll get justice. I've lost a lot of faith in the system as it is increasingly favoring the big guy over the little guy: companies over individuals, corporations over companies, states over citizenry, and the federal government over everything else. IE, it's doing the exact same thing it was originally intended to prevent.
Re:hit them back (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm an anti-copyright advocate. I hate the idea of intellectual property laws.
That being said, I find it amusing that Mr. Engle is getting raked over the coals. Honestly, this artist thinks that government laws are there to protect him. It's possible that he was a supporter of copyright laws. If so, I'm glad this is happening.
I feel pity for him, but not a lot. When you think laws are written to help the small and weak, you become part of the problem. Copyright was written to protect the large and poweful. Small and weak designers should repudiate copyright and release their works into the public domain -- all their works. By creating a path of proof that the art was released to the public domain, they can protect themselves from this mess.
By releasing their OLD prior work freely, they can build a reputation for gaining new customers, to get hired for NEW work. It isn't the final product that you're paid for, it is the path to the final product. Once a job is designed, it has no value except in a portfolio.
Copyright laws that harm the small fish who support the laws are doing exactly as the law intended: the control non-powerful people and organizations and to protect powerful people and organizations.
Just another example of why I prefer a non-State world. We don't need laws to protect ourselves.
Re:hit them back (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Slander and Interference w/a Business Relations (Score:3, Interesting)
This is slander, and interference with a contractual business relationship. I'd expect them to get slapped down very hard over that one.
It's also a clear violation of the Bar rules of ethics (4.4) in Washington DC, where these lawyers are. They could get admonished, suspended, or even disbarred, and I hope they do. I encourage Jon to file a Bar complaint in addition to litigation.