Copyright Infringement

I see that this site is very strict about photo use. I also see individuals that are very aggressive about protecting their own photos; lots of posts about copyright infringement.

Has anyone here filed suit and won for copyright infringement on a photo used on a website without permission? Were there monetary damages paid or just removal of the photos from the site?

Just curious.
JohnNJ

I believe you cannot sue for damages in the US unless the injured party has actually filed the copyright paperwork before the theft.
If you don't have a valid copyright on file with the government, then I think all you can do is get them to stop using the content. I suppose it's concievable that you might be able to go to civil court over it, but it won't actually be a copyright infringement suit without the paperwork.

disclaimer: I am not an expert (I know patents but not so much copyrights)...please do your own research rather than take my word for it :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishmommy

I believe you cannot sue for damages in the US unless the injured party has actually filed the copyright paperwork before the theft.
If you don't have a valid copyright on file with the government, then I think all you can do is get them to stop using the content.

disclaimer: I am not an expert...please do your own research rather than take my word for it :P

---

I'm pretty sure you dont need a copyright on file for photos.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa...al.html#mywork

Quote:

---

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

---

actually, it says right there in the quote that you can't bring an infringment suit without the registration on file. that was exactly my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishmommy

actually, it says right there in the quote that you can't bring an infringment suit without the registration on file. that was exactly my point.

---

Yes, but I didn't want others to think they now have to register a copyright for all of their photos and works, because they are protected the moment they are created. :gj:

indeed, but the question was about suing, thus my answer. they're protected, but without teeth as it were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishmommy

indeed, but the question was about suing, thus my answer. they're protected, but without teeth as it were.

---

Oh yes, of course :bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow:

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not :(
I'm just trying to be helpful. I'm studying right now for the bar exam so all this stuff is right in my frontal lobe trying to get out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishmommy

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not :(

---

Pure admiration. :gj:

trouble is, I still don't fully understand what recourse you DO have if you find yourself being ripped off but have not filed paperwork.

If anyone does know the answer I'd love to hear it. I'm sure you can ask them to remove the content, but if they refuse then I'm not sure what the next step is. I think you can actually file copyright paperwork retroactively as much as 5 years after you originally published the content and THEN go after the infringer.... but that may or may not be the only/best option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishmommy

indeed, but the question was about suing, thus my answer. they're protected, but without teeth as it were.

---

Thanks for confirming what I had thought. This community makes a big thing about unauthorized photo use, more than I've seen on photography forums, but there's little that can be done in the real world short of embarrassing the person.

I've sold photos but I've never sold the exclusive rights to my photos. I was paid three times what my normal fee was for a photo that was used in print without my authorization, but it was basically "go away" money before it ever went to court. It was a big organization that didn't want any negative publicity.

As was mentioned in another thread, a water mark will give you credit for the photo. I doubt you'll get much more from the average person with a website.

If anyone has actually sued and won, I'd love to hear about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnNJ

This community makes a big thing about unauthorized photo use, more than I've seen on photography forums, but there's little that can be done in the real world short of embarrassing the person.

---

The reason we are so intense about watermarks is because there is so much scamming reptiles on the internet. There have been scammers busted because of water marks.

Mike

Seriously. Is there anything on this forum you're actually happy with? Sheesh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoax

The reason we are so intense about watermarks is because there is so much scamming reptiles on the internet.

---

Scamming may be part of it but if you look at the inquiry thread on BallPythonZone.com at

http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...ad.php?t=86844

you can clearly see that the focus is on "stealing" the photos but I do understand your point.

Photographers protect their work for a different reason than reptile breeders. Reptile breeders should focus on the reptile. If I photograph a house, no one cares whether I own it and I don't get permission from the homeowner before shooting.

What happens if I go to a big snake breeder and photograph all of the snakes and put those photos on my snake based website as part of the overall design - not in the collection or available sections. The photos are mine but the snakes are not. I can put my watermark on the photos and no one can claim that I stole them. What then?

It really IS about scamming. Why don't you get that?

There have been so many threads, websites, and scammers even on this forum this past year that stole pictures. They want to make it look like they have these animals, so they can get money and SCAM.

Remember LAWreptiles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnNJ

Scamming may be part of it but if you look at the inquiry thread on BallPythonZone.com at

http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...ad.php?t=86844

you can clearly see that the focus is on "stealing" the photos but I do understand your point.

Photographers protect their work for a different reason than reptile breeders. Reptile breeders should focus on the reptile. If I photograph a house, no one cares whether I own it and I don't get permission from the homeowner before shooting.

What happens if I go to a big snake breeder and photograph all of the snakes and put those photos on my snake based website as part of the overall design - not in the collection or available sections. The photos are mine but the snakes are not. I can put my watermark on the photos and no one can claim that I stole them. What then?

---

We went from one subject to another (I guess you just can't help yourself but have to complain about something) :rolleye2:

The person taking a picture is the owner of the copyright whether the animal belongs to them or not. (if that clarifies copyright ownership of a picture for you)

Now people who go to other breeder’s facility and take pictures and use them on their website do not claim to own those animals, know better than put them in their collection page or use them for their website design.

If they did I would strongly assume they asked the animal's owner if they could use the picture as part of their web design or such and would give proper credit to the owner.

A breeder that let you in their facility know that you will post those pictures online and if they objected to this they would simply not allow you to take pictures.

Now to the original subject, because I post pictures online (forum, my own website or any other venue) does not mean I allow Joe Schmoe to use MY picture and post it on his myspace, on a forum or his own website. Even if proper credit is given I would still not agree and ask for the picture to be taken down (been thee done that), why? It is pretty simple if you want to post a picture that belongs to me have the courtesy to ask me if it is ok for you to do so. (Respect goes a long way)

Would I give the right to some people to use my pictures if they were courteous enough to ask? Absolutely been there, done that too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deborah

Now to the original subject, because I post pictures online (forum, my own website or any other venue) does not mean I allow Joe Schmoe to use MY picture and post it on his myspace, on a forum or his own website. Even if proper credit is given I would still not agree and ask for the picture to be taken down (been thee done that), why? It is pretty simple if you want to post a picture that belongs to me have the courtesy to ask me if it is ok for you to do so. (Respect goes a long way).

---

This goes back to my original point (better known as a complaint to the chosen :rolleye2:). You could ask and even embarrass but if they refuse to take down the picture, you're SOL unless you want to spend some money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleindiangirl

It really IS about scamming. Why don't you get that?

---

I get that people may be motivated to expose scammers but they're not using the right approach. Instead of focusing on the snakes, they're focusing on the photos. You may believe they are the same thing but they're not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadera

Seriously

Is there anything on this forum you're actually happy with?

Sheesh

---

Sheesh:

Yes, there is something on this forum that I'm actually happy with. And please don't call me Seriously.

JohnNJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnNJ

I get that people may be motivated to expose scammers but they're not using the right approach. Instead of focusing on the snakes, they're focusing on the photos. You may believe they are the same thing but they're not.

---

You obviously dont understand. Photos=snakes in the online business. Most people dont have the luxury of going to check out a breeder to see if he actually has that screaming hot pastel that looks a hell of a lot like the picture on NERD...

You see the point now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnNJ

This goes back to my original point (better known as a complaint to the chosen :rolleye2:). You could ask and even embarrass but if they refuse to take down the picture, you're SOL unless you want to spend some money.

---

thats when you email the webhost

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThyTempest

You obviously dont understand. Photos=snakes in the online business. Most people dont have the luxury of going to check out a breeder to see if he actually has that screaming hot pastel that looks a hell of a lot like the picture on NERD...

You see the point now?

---

Of course I see your point but you refuse to concede mine. I admit it's just semantics but if photos=snakes, then refer to the snakes not the photos / copyright infringement.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were fishing for a way to justify using other people's photos for your own purposes...poking around to see if there's really any real repercussions for doing so. :confuzd:

But I'm sure that's not what you're doing. :yes:

Even if there is not some legal means of forcing someone to cease and desist an illegal action, it does not mean that action is any more legal or justifiable or not-wrong to do. It's just plain WRONG to use someone else's photos without their knowledge and consent, and all the more so if you don't even bother giving credit to the person who owns it in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were fishing for a way to justify using other people's photos for your own purposes...poking around to see if there's really any real repercussions for doing so. :confuzd:

But I'm sure that's not what you're doing. :yes:

Even if there is not some legal means of forcing someone to cease and desist an illegal action, it does not mean that action is any more legal or justifiable or not-wrong to do. It's just plain WRONG to use someone else's photos without their knowledge and consent, and all the more so if you don't even bother giving credit to the person who owns it in the first place.

---

Exactly. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnNJ

I get that people may be motivated to expose scammers but they're not using the right approach. Instead of focusing on the snakes, they're focusing on the photos. You may believe they are the same thing but they're not.

---

I don't know if anyone will "concede your point" because your point does not make much sense. Stolen photos are the bright, flashing neon arrows pointing toward the scammer.

And no...not all use of stolen photos on the 'Net equals a scam (in the monetary sense)...some people just like to make themselves look better by having fancy photos on their websites (whether it's snakes or scenery or whatever)....and rather than go to the trouble of taking them themselves, or paying for them, or even just asking for permission....they think it's fine to take someone else's work and use it however they want. They may not be out to make money with the stolen photos, but it's still wrong and shows a distinct lack of integrity and character in the person who would knowingly do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were fishing for a way to justify using other people's photos for your own purposes...poking around to see if there's really any real repercussions for doing so. :confuzd:

But I'm sure that's not what you're doing. :yes:

Even if there is not some legal means of forcing someone to cease and desist an illegal action, it does not mean that action is any more legal or justifiable or not-wrong to do. It's just plain WRONG to use someone else's photos without their knowledge and consent, and all the more so if you don't even bother giving credit to the person who owns it in the first place.

---

I may not have made this clear in my original post but I was a professional photographer. People paid me money to use my photos. I know what the repercussions are.

My approach to photo use is pretty basic. I look at intent. I once had a Grad student link to a photo on my website of a historic building. She used it as an example of some sort of architecture and she never gave me credit. She hot linked it also. Guess what? I let her slide and never said a word. I presumed her intent did not warrant an attack from me.

I have had people use my photos on their websites, giving me credit and posting a link back to my site. Even though they never asked for permission I let it slide because of their intent.

If someone was using my snake photos to scam a buyer, their intent is so far removed from copyright infringement that it would never enter the equation.

There's wrong and then there's WRONG!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnNJ

If someone was using my snake photos to scam a buyer, their intent is so far removed from copyright infringement that it would never enter the equation.

There's wrong and then there's WRONG!

---

For me (at least). I feel there is a huge element of "creed" going on when someone takes a pic and uses it.

I have vented about this with a few online friends in the past.

I knew a person, new to snakes, that picked up a few possible het recessives for the price of normals. Cause that is what they are.

And when I visited the site, I saw "Projects" and there were pics of pieds, hypos, you name it... as well as an amazing bio regarding the vast amount of experience and love of animals dating back many years.

Sure this individual had always loved snakes, but this person had JUST gotten to point of owning them, considering breeding, and did not have even rudimentary genetics knowledge yet.

I knew this, because I knew them personally.

But were I to wander across this page, and see those pics... suddenly this person has creed. They have experience, they have knowledge, they have just upped their credibility tenfold.

Their site would have superceded mine. Because my Albino, Clown, Axanthic, Hypo, and Pied projects are just hets, and that is what would show on my site.

There is more to it than merely being inconsiderate.

By the time I invest the time, energy, resources and knowledge to produce a Pied and then post it. That will speak for itself.

If I go to a site and I see 3 normals and 2 WCs... I know this person is new to the hobby... I see tons of morphs, and not just morphs, but well photographed top notch examples of them, that leads me to believe that I am dealing with someone with experience.

This person may not outwardly be scamming me, but their online persona is a fraud, whether intentionally meant to be that way or not.

There is a reason people never steal crappy pics...

Bruce

oh dear. I saw an interesting legal question and responded, not realizing that this was a sort of troll cave type posting.

Sorry for adding fuel to this...if I had realized this had 'undertones' I would have simply moved on rather than participate.

ugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnNJ

but you refuse to concede mine.

---

It is hard to concede a point that makes no sense to you and seem like it is there to just argue or justify something with in the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

I don't know if anyone will "concede your point" because your point does not make much sense. Stolen photos are the bright, flashing neon arrows pointing toward the scammer.

---

^^^^^ He has to listen long enough and stop trying to prove his point. I have not been married for long but to get your point across you have to listen to the other side.^^^^^^^

Mike