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.'"
hit them back (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, let's use the DMCA for it's intended pupose for once.
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Insightful)
By "intended purpose" you mean, of course, the exact same purpose it's always used for, but as done by a party you sympathize with for some unknown reason.
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Insightful)
If a criminal accused his victim of a crime, you sympathize with the victim more than you would normally with either a victim of false accusation or a victim of the crime. The audacity of it adds up.
(Also, these people are profiting off the copied art, claiming it as their own, and slandering the creator - it's not like some personal homepage being slapped for using clip art, or a movie excerpt being taken off Youtube. Plagiarism is a lot, lot worse than copyright violation.)
Nuke the suckers with the powers of law.
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Insightful)
agreed. I always have a similar opinion when reading every article I read. I disregard anything that could be false or manipulated, leaving me knowing as much as I did before I started reading the article.
What you finish the article knowing is one side's story, which is fine as long as you keep in mind that it's only one side's story. If it interests you, keep up with the story and keep investigating it.
While it is very well-written (which makes me inclined to believe him), Engle's post doesn't offer any evidence. It's a cry to rally defenders and donations, and that would make sense for him to do in either case. That's what the grandparent post was pointing out. From a look at the comments, scores of Diggers have already made up their minds and are charging off on their steeds as we speak.
Re: (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 pow
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Insightful)
As an advocate, you have presented very little to bolster your claim. As well, your gloat in the face of this man's plight, alleged or otherwise, is appalling.
I applaud you for choosing and sticking to a particular cause. But please get off your high-horse.
Copyright laws may be used to benefit both large and small, and I have seen instances of the later, while we all have seen instances of the former. Eliminating copyright and endorsing nothing but public domain is not the solution. Frequently people advocate complete elimination of a broken system instead of actually fixing it. I cannot abide such a position as it is too much like just walking away from a problem rather than actually analyzing and correcting the underlying issue.
Yes, we are seeing copyright and patent laws abused the world over. But put everything in the public domain? Too communistic for me, thank you. (Though probably not the best way to describe the situation, since the interpretation of Communism which we know involves the State taking possession of its peoples' creations and efforts for the benefit of all and the Greater Good, or however it sees fit. I simply lack a better way to describe it.)
I enjoy owning things, and that includes anything that I create. Sure, I may choose to make something available for others to use, but other items of my creation I want to stay under my control, so it represents what I want it to represent and not be usurped by ulterior, unintended, or inappropriate presentations.
Bill Waterston has mentioned plenty of times how the image of Calvin was essentially stolen from him and used for unauthorized depictions of him pissing on anything from a race car number to the Windows logo. Such depiction goes entirely against Mr. Waterston's intentions and desired representations of "Calvin and Hobbes."
And how would the creators of "Veggie Tales," a cartoon expressing religious morality, feel about a Larry the Cucumber vibrator?
It seems to me that too many people are very liberal with the use of other peoples' creations. And yet many of those same people become very defensive once the tables are turned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just another example of why I prefer a non-State world. We don't need laws to protect ourselves.
Really? I'd rather have laws that protected my basic rights. I'd really rather not live by the "law of the jungle", and be subject to the wishes of whoever can muster the most armed force in my particular area.
I recognize that your preferences may differ. In that case, you are free to move to some of the more lawless portions of this world. Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo come to mind. I'm sure the residents of those locales feel that they're living in paradise just beca
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Informative)
By "intended purpose" you mean, of course, the exact same purpose it's always used for
Except for when it's used to remove material that isn't infringing the complainant's copyrights, either submitted by some sort of drooling subhuman (against a file manager [slashdot.org]) or a pissed off lawyer (numerous takedown notices for parodies) or at random (like this tutorial video [slashdot.org]) or by someone who just has no clue how this copyright thingy is supposed to work (Protip: unless you design furniture from cardboard boxes, pictures of furniture from cardboard boxes do not infringe your copyright [slashdot.org]).
It's a slashdot bias, actually. We only hear about the fuckups here. Letters used for their intended purpose come and go all the time without notice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well then, what's needed is a database of DMCA notices, so we can see what proportion are real, stretched, or bogus, as the case may be.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse [chillingeffects.org] has a searchable database [chillingeffects.org] of DMCA notices, and other take down requests, but they rely on either the sender [chillingeffects.org] or receiver [chillingeffects.org] to report it to them.
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Informative)
No, "intended purpose" means protecting someone's legal copyright.
As opposed to:
- sending takedown notices for content that clearly doesn't infringe copyright
- warping copyright law to stop sales of compatible hardware (e.g. printer ink cartridges)
- preventing security researchers from publicizing software flaws that are putting users at risk
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Informative)
I feel that both your comment and its moderation are woefully ignorant of the point of the parent's comment. I refer you to the previous slashdot story. [slashdot.org]
Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims."
So, no its not the "exact same" purpose its "always" used for. In this case it appears it would be used for be used for its proposed intention. As for the "unknown reason" for sympathy, it appears that its not the the use that more than half would be being used.. to diminish competition.
Reading comprehension (Score:3, Funny)
Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.
There are a lot of things that the folks at Google are capable of doing, and I believe "counting" is one of them. :-D
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Insightful)
We used to kill off the stupid fucks, or let them do themselves in with their own stupidity. But once we became civilized we started coddling stupid fucks, so they thrived against all natural odds and eventually overran us, and consequently the world is now being run by stupid fucks.
Inverse natural selection at work. :/
Re:hit them back (Score:4, Informative)
You are wrong.
Not in your first statement, but your second.
Its not inverse natural selection, if we don't change something we most certainly will not survive based on what we are doing to our enviroment.
I don't mean global warming or any of that crap where we think we're the center of the universe, simply that between the population growth and the ignorant douche bags we're keeping alive rather than letting them end up on the Darwin awards, that we WILL have to come fact to face with natural selection in the future. The exact reason, I donno, hopefully I never will, but natural selection WILL work it all out.
Population booms for a given species do occur very often and generally aren't pretty in the end.
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Funny)
How in the world did we ever form civilization?
With much effort from Sid Meier.
That doesn't explain the weather, though... (Score:5, Funny)
How in the world did we ever form civilization?
With much effort from Sid Meier.
Next you're going to blame him for the large number of copyright-infringing Pirates!, aren't you?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd go even further back. How did we ever form multicellular organisms?
Stupid fucking, of course.
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: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:5, Insightful)
A lawyer can be just another enemy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't everyone?
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be the most obvious starting shot. But it sounds like this could be awfully expensive in lawyer fees.
The only ones smiling at the end of all this will be the lawyers.
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like stockart are good at doing this sort of thing. See this blog post [whatdoiknow.org] for more info.
Re:hit them back (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Insightful)
So their solution? Turn into the bottom feeders of the economy, suing anything they lay eyes on. I personally hope this guy sues this company for everything they're worth, and maybe he'll rid the world of another copyright infringement shark.
Trouble is, if their business model has collapsed to that extent, "everything they're worth" isn't likely to cover his legal costs. After all, pretty much their only significant asset would probably be the IP in their artwork, and if it's not really their IP it isn't worth much.
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:hit them back (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, they sell OK cables and have good support. What's not to like?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One of my favorite lines from this letter that I've read a few times in the past year (regarding them suing him):
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks for posting this again; I think the spirit contained within that letter is something that may be helpful and inspiring for the person facing this current predicament.
I love reading that Bluejeanscable letter..I've read it before, but reading it again once more just fills me with glee....To see a corporation engaging in abuse of the legal system against the small guy, and to see the fuck up and have chosen THE WRONG GUY to fuck with, and to enjoy the letter point by point as he shuts down their weak,
jjhkajhklsdfjkl (Score:3, Insightful)
this laws are supposed to help this dude, or people like this dude, if this dude fail to protect itself, then our system has failed, and we don't need any protection. If the force of the strong is the one that prevail, theres no need for laws.
Re:jjhkajhklsdfjkl (Score:4, Funny)
You are ... dead wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The law protects the ones that has the financial means to afford its protection. Those others that lack the financial means are just... road kills.
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:Countersuit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Countersuit (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem: The clients don't want anything to do with the guy and are unlikely to be cooperative when proving libel. It'll be his word against the defence, unless he has a few friends among his clients.
I found this out first hand when I took a former employer to court and tried to get a other former employees to back me up. Everyone disappeared under a rock, as no one wanted to get involved with courts, lawyers or risk getting dragged into someone else's fight. It's less trouble for them to just hold their tongues. The only people who would back me up were personal friends. (Fortunately I won the case without these people's help: the employer destroyed his credibility with the judge by falsifying records.)
The law may be on this guy's side, but I don't envy him one bit. He's in for a lonely fight.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I found this out first hand when I took a former employer to court and tried to get a other former employees to back me up.
Less of a problem than you think. I was one of those ex-employees in a case against one of my former employers, and while I was perfectly happy to testify (said employer was a crook) my willing cooperation was not necessary. The attorney told me that while he definitely appreciated my attitude, he was going to send me a subpoena anyway. So, it doesn't really matter if your friends (ha, ex-friends now I imagine) wanted to testify or not: if they get a subpoena they show up in court, or face the consequences.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Any sane court and lawyer would simple compel the companies to produce evidence in order to ensure justice is done.
This sort of thing happens all the time, the courts are rather adept at dealing with it. They've been doing it for a few years you know?
Your coworkers had something to lose by helping you, their jobs could have suddenly started to suck or cease to exist. The worst this guy is going to get is that the customers that already don't want anything to do with him are going to continue to not want a
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: (Score:2)
Re:Countersuit (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL but AFAICT It doesn't really work that way. First you go after the guy who actually committed the violations. THEN you go after the people who paid him
No. Copyright is a strict liability issue, even if the stock photo agency did not know they are still liable but with lower damages. From 17504(c)(2): "In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."
I don't see why I was modded troll. Sounds to me like this company is trying to get almost 20k$ and is going after his credibility and business relations which will surely cost him much more in the long run. This is already far past what can be resolved quietly, this will have to end up in court or he can kiss his career goodbye. And once you're already there, I see no reason to hold back. Even if you can't prove all that it'll get them scrambling to find out if it's true or not - maybe their internal will figure out this is something they'd better settle.
He needs to get a good lawyer, countersue... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:He needs to get a good lawyer, countersue... (Score:5, Insightful)
Additionally, he should include in his demand a request for all the revenue they've generated from sales and licensing of his artwork, as well as a copy of any contracts in their possession.
They'll have to turn it over to him eventually if he goes to court, and they'll quickly realize that it's not worth going to court over piddling sums. The only one who will want to drag this out is the lawyers ... since they get paid no matter what.
Now if he had stenagrphically embedded an mp3 recording, he could ask for statutory damages of $150,000.00 per copy ...
This is not a bad thing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Go get legal advice now, make sure they have actual experience in IP law.
Good luck with your new found source of revenue!
Re: (Score:2)
Yup - since they themselves submitted an estimate of the value of the copyright that should give him a strong case. I'd think that a lot of lawyers would take something like this on contingency - we're talking about tens of thousands of dollars.
Re:This is not a bad thing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Punitive damages vary state by state, and the tendancy is for more, not less states these days to award punative damages
Copyright is a federal law, and the statutory damage range is spelled out in chapter 5 of the copyright statute. By "states" did you mean "federal court districts" or "federal appeals court circuits"?
Slashdotted (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.jonengle.com.nyud.net/2009/04/accused/ [nyud.net]
Coral Cache (Score:3, Informative)
Sue them HARD (Score:3, Insightful)
so that the damages you get from them for harrassing you about YOUR own creations make them scream hard.
hire a lawyer ASAP (Score:2, Informative)
Judging by your description, I'm guessing that you haven't registered the copyright of your images.
Big mistake. If you don't register a copyright within four months of publication, you cannot get statutory damages. You can only recover actual damages, and the burden will be on you to prove them.
1. Hire a lawyer
2. Register your copyrights (you still have to register before you can file suit)
3. File suit (not just for copyright infringement, you clearly have a claim for defamation as well)
4. Send DMCA n
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As the parent said, if you don't register, you are not eligible to claim statutory damages, only actual damages.
The Evil Batman Did It (Score:5, Funny)
The "bad" batman is on a crime spree, framing the "good" batman.
Following this plotline, the solution to the OP's problem is quite straightforward:
He needs to enlist help from the Joker, who is now facing some serious competition in the battle for Gotham.
Re:The Evil Batman Did It (Score:5, Funny)
He needs to enlist help from the Joker, who is now facing some serious competition in the battle for Gotham.
you mean, he needs to get some lawyers?
Suprised this isn't more common (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised this isn't more common. Sadly this will probably cost him in legal fees, and both he and the company are victims of a 3rd scam artist.
That they won't back down with presented with proof, ways against them. Do they think he is making it up or are they afraid of losing face?
Re: (Score:2)
Do they think he is making it up or are they afraid of losing face?
Both sides probably think they're in the right. The stock image place most likely doesn't believe his proof yet.
Re:Suprised this isn't more common (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? The stock image firm must know that they didn't create these images--they bought them from someone. I would hope they know who. Have they talked to this person? Done any checking to whether he in fact at some point worked for the person they're suing?
I'm not saying they should have known this before they filed the suit, but at this point some reasonable and verifiable allegations have been made. When someone accuses you of theft, I'd hope you investigate.
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?
Re:Suprised this isn't more common (Score:4, Informative)
sxc.hu has some excellent photographers, and they have to patrol photolia and other sites to keep the image thieves from uploading works they didn't shoot.
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: (Score:2)
Re:How do you prove you created the content (Score:5, Insightful)
I already have enough problems with images I post publicy
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a great idea! I'm glad that I invested into the Nikon D1*V* which takes vector photos.
Re: (Score:3)
And as I mentioned in a previous post, RAW files have the camera's serial number embedded. Show up with the RAW and your camera bearing the same serial number, and wham bam thank you ma'am, there you go. No doubt about it at all.
Re:How do you prove you created the content (Score:4, Insightful)
Get a manilla envelope, put the pictures in them, go to the post office and mail them to yourself.
I doubt this will work. USPS is happy to mail an open envelope, and I receive those now and then (typically mass mailings.) Alternatively, you can seal the envelope with a very light glue - for example a rubber goo that printers use to attach a subscription sheet to the front page of some trade publication. These will hold fine while the envelope is being mailed, but once in your hands the goo can be removed without a trace, and now you have a dated envelope that is empty and open. Put anything in it at any later date, seal, and claim it as proof!
IMO, a better way to date-stamp a hardcopy is by going to your nearest UPS Store and paying for notary services. Each page of your document will be stamped and signed, and the fact will be recorded into Notary's book. They are kind of careful about those books, so it's very unlikely that anyone can contest a notary's stamp and signature. Another advantage is that the materials never leave your hands, and have no chance of being lost or misdelivered.
Apologies in advance (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope they get their collective asses kicked bigtime over this debacle.
Destroy them (Score:4, Informative)
They're trying to destroy him so he has to turn around and crush the scum bags.
Why the lawyers won't let it drop (Score:5, Informative)
Something similar happened to me and I knew the lawyers realized they had no case but they wouldn't let it drop as long as their client was paying. My mother was a judge, so I knew how to aproach this. See the lawyers would never bring this to trial because the judge would repremand them when it was so clear they had no case. But that won't stop them from threatening me. So, first, because I wasn't a lawyer, I sent copious letters to the lawyers and their client repeatedly telling them they in as many ways that they had no case. Each letter sent to the lawyer cost the client money. Each letter sent to the client cost the client money when they turned the letter over to the lawyers as they must. Each reply from the lawyer, and they must reply to each letter, cost the client money. You can't wear lawyers down, but you can wear the client down.
Do not have a lawyer send the letters. It is considered unethical for a lawyer to send a letter to the another lawyer's cleint and it is really the client you want to get to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do not have a lawyer send the letters. It is considered unethical for a lawyer to send a letter to the another lawyer's cleint and it is really the client you want to get to. I have no idea where you're pulling that from, but it's gotta be a place where the sun ain't shining too often.
It's true, though it is as much professional courtesy as ethics.
some IANAL suggestions (Score:5, Informative)
what your counsel needs to do
1 begin a counter suit in a GO FOR BLOOD type mode
2 file an injunction with the court preventing them from "discussing details of the case(s) with parties not currently involved with the case" (why are they telling your customers that the status of their purchase may be in question??)
3 file a DCMA notice on the images in question
4 get lots of discovery, lots and lots of discovery
what you need to do
1 stop talking about the case! your last post should be that you did the DCMA notice and got your injunction
2 contact all of your clients and inform them of the situation and offer to send them proof of copyright (higher res version with predated meta stamps or whatever)
3 remember your actions should be clean and above the board (but hire a team that speaks MoFo grade law)
This is a sign of the times. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is a sign of the times. (Score:4, Informative)
And did you ask for proof of ownership provided by the other person? They have to show it to you as your next step, according to the DMCA is court proceedings where you'll have to show them you've already done the first 2 steps.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
No, you're confused. The point here is to have a hash proving the date you owned the original. So long as you don't actually lose all copies of the original file you can use other methods to compare the original and the claimed "copy" - it's the proof that you had the original file at a particular date that's important here...
Re: (Score:2)
It was on firehose 3 hours ago - when I looked about an hour ago he had 300+ posts and it was already doing the rounds on digg, stumble, reddit etc
Rightly so. This kind of crap needs stamping on hard.
Re:that was fast (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't Slashdotted. It was already hit by several other big sites. Slashdot's a day behind on knocking his site down. :)
There's a link for the cache in the comments here. A blog posting, and lots of comments most of which saying the same thing. Get a good lawyer.
They probably bought his images from a 3rd party, so they believe they own them. They'll hold onto that belief until it's gone through court. It'll probably turn out that it's almost impossible to track down the 3rd party, so all he'll eventually get is for the stock photo site to take down his work.
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:that was fast (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:that was fast (Score:5, Insightful)
That still applies in photography with RAWs. They have the serial number of the camera that took them embedded in the data, and they can't be edited, only converted and saved in a different format and then edited. The original RAW is just a dump of the sensor's state immediately after the shutter closes. They're also huge proprietary formats, and I don't think any photographer uploads them to stock sites.
On top of that, they're held as a much higher form of evidence than say a JPEG in court as they are extremely difficult to tamper with. Since a RAW image is not even an image, but just a memory dump of a CMOS or CCD, you'd have to know the specifics of that exact chip in order to edit it, and the only people who know that usually are the manufacturers of said chip.
So, "I've got the RAWs, what do you have, JPEGs?"
Re: (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. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless the camera is specifically made for it (e.g. cameras which digitally sign the RAW), faking a RAW isn't as hard as you make it out to be. Converting a JPEG back to a RAW and putting in a phony serial number is certainly within the realm of possibility for a dedicated fraudster. And not having the RAW doesn't mean you weren't the photographer either, obviously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, since I've seen software that can read and manipulate RAW files from various cameras, as a developer that lets me know that you can certainly create RAW files that look like they came from the camera. If you have the math to go one way, you have the math to go the other way. The app knows the entire process of reading and making an image out of a RAW, it can certainly produce a RAW that will give you the same image. It might not be the same RAW as the original, but that really doesn't matter since
Re: (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
Re:that was fast (Score:5, Informative)
What do I have (and by I, I'm just meaning any photographer in general)? Well, for one I've got an original file of that same image. Perhaps it contains slightly more resolution than the photo you've got (maybe it was downsampled, cropped, or modified in some other way). Perhaps it's in raw format, and that raw file can be converted (using the right settings) to generate the supplied art. The metadata in that file (camera, lens, focal length, focal distance, shutter speed, aperture, iso, capture time, etc) can be used to verify several things, like is the angle of shadows consistant with the time of day, is the depth of field consistant with what you'd get from the indicated lens+settings, etc. Of course, all of that could theoretically be reverse engineered from the photo, but it would take quite a bit of effort and be prone to error.
I then also have a couple other photos of the same scene from slightly different angles. I've got dozens (if not hundreds) of other images from the same location or event. Evidence like that would be MANY orders of magnitude more difficult to fake. If you could fake that, you'd have no need to steal images because you could obviously just fabricate any photo you'd like.
Of course, if that's not the nail in the coffin, then there is also the fact that I (hopefully) registered the photo with the copyright office prior to your first documented usage of the image. And barring that, maybe I've sold the image to some other company before your first documented usage, and they can be called on to testify to that.
In short, even in the film days, an original negative was the least of the evidence a photographer had to prove his ownership, and in the age of digital photography, that same evidence is still every bit as useful.
Re:that was fast (Score:5, Insightful)
No, "C" thinks it has legitimate claim to the images. Not the same thing.
Whether or not "C" was tricked by "B", they still have no claim against "A" (the actual author). And by going after "A"s clients, they threw away any chance to settle their mistake amicably, so now "A" is perfectly justified in releasing the lawyers on "C".
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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.