My Photo Was Stolen!

[dcnctx]

Originally Posted by Howard Barlow

Relinquish copyright? I hope you mean license the image, rather than relinquish copyright. Those are two different terms, with substantial differences in meaning.

Sorry Howard, I should have referenced with a quote.

I was simply making a corrolation to the "Contest Entry" comment. Since copyright is now surrendered or relenquished to another entity by signature only, then if nothing has been signed relating to photo the copyright would remain intact and probably all licensing as well. I guess there could be some public domain issues involved, however.

Does that lend more clarity?

[Howard Barlow]

Originally Posted by dcnctx

I was simply making a corrolation to the "Contest Entry" comment. Since copyright is now surrendered or relenquished to another entity by signature only, ...
Does that lend more clarity?

Do we know that for certain, that copyright was transfered by the entry? I have never encountered such, and would never entertain such. If that was part of the rules, and agreed to, then yes, someone else owns the copyright, and the original photographer can no longer use the image for any purpose whatsoever, without license from the new copyright owner. Then again, maybe shared copyright was the rules requirement.

My main point is that I see copyright and license interchanged daily. Most people, including some professionals, do not know there is a difference. No doubt, many have, inadvertantly, transfered copyright, when they really meant to license the use. And, most do not realize if they did transfer copyright, they no longer have any right to the image's use. They can't even put it on their web site.

[dcnctx]

Originally Posted by w0fcm

... I am sure whoever stole it simply downloaded it either off of my website or perhaps another website where I had posted it for critique or contest.
...

This was the OP's contest reference and here was the other that I was referencing.

Originally Posted by Patti Edens

Read the fine print in any contests you may have entered with this photo. In many contests you end up giving up the farm.

p

Even in a contest entry, at some point a signature would be required to transfer copyright or to license an image the way I understand it and you might be required to provide a signature to claim a prize of any kind. I don't believe submission can qualify as transfer of copyright and probably not licensing either, nor as a signature.

I don't know about the efficacy of a virtual signature related to copyright or licensing. I've never heard of it at this point relateded to (edit) business"es" "transfering" copyright. I know several government websites enable electronic signatures but when you submit one you definately know that you are submitting an electronic signature to the government website.

I wasn't using the term "copyright" interchangably with "licensing". Only copyright as the maximum issue with the photograph.

Howard, I agree with you; I'm sure many photographers give away their rights related to a photograph by not understanding the terms being used or their rights related to their artistic work.

Creative Commons is a whole other can of worms that hasn't been discussed related to photographer's future rights with their images or works.

[CobyPhoto]

Done with this thread.

CJ

[kenw]

"I don't believe submission can qualify as transfer of copyright ..."

not of copyright specifically but many contests require you to "convey all rights" as a condition of submission. It's often in the very, very fine print.

[dcnctx]

Originally Posted by kenw

"I don't believe submission can qualify as transfer of copyright ..."

not of copyright specifically but many contests require you to "convey all rights" as a condition of submission. It's often in the very, very fine print.

Definately always worthy to understand the fine print.

Without a signature, I think the only thing a contest provider could do is hold your winnings hostage; otherwise, this would be as pervasive as "email spam" as a technique to rob artists of their work.

[Howard Barlow]

Originally Posted by dcnctx

This was the OP's contest reference and here was the other that I was referencing.

I know, I was just saying. I've never heard the term 'business copyright'. What is that?

[dcnctx]

Originally Posted by Howard Barlow

I know, I was just saying. I've never heard the term 'business copyright'. What is that?

Typing too fast, I guess, Howard.


"businesses transfering copyrights" (using a virtual signature)

Sorry!



Since this poster hasn't returned, guess I've given enough commentary for now.

[park]

Originally Posted by CobyPhoto

Ouch. Key to this whole mess. If you can find out who the manufactuer is and you want to pay for the legal expense to attack them, you might able to get them to take the photo off of their product. As far as getting damages and compensation for the photo's use...good luck.

It would be a total legal nightmare and very lenghty/hard process. (And unfortunately, you would have to pay the initial legal expenses to fight this battle.)

This is a pretty good example of why I don't post alot of work on the web...if you don't want it stolen, don't post it.

I would definitely pursue it to the point they at minimum take the minor's photo off of their product.

CJ

I just settled an infringement case with one of the largest music retailers in the US in ten minutes and got a check for four figures. You need to start a dialogue. Not all situations like this turn adversarial. I talked to one of their lawyers telling him that I was sure that some 18 year old kid inadvertently pulled my image and used it in an editorial piece on their web site. I made it clear from the start that I was reasonable and just wanted fair usage. Ended up they said they would contact me for assignment work in my market the next time they needed some photos and cut me a check that day. Win Win.

If they had actually used it in advertising it wouldn't have been just four figures. Of course what you can get is in direct relationship to the size of the infringer I bet.

[barP]

Originally Posted by park

I just settled an infringement case with one of the largest music retailers in the US in ten minutes and got a check for four figures. You need to start a dialogue. Not all situations like this turn adversarial. I talked to one of their lawyers telling him that I was sure that some 18 year old kid inadvertently pulled my image and used it in an editorial piece on their web site. I made it clear from the start that I was reasonable and just wanted fair usage. Ended up they said they would contact me for assignment work in my market the next time they needed some photos and cut me a check that day. Win Win.

If they had actually used it in advertising it wouldn't have been just four figures. Of course what you can get is in direct relationship to the size of the infringer I bet.

excellent post. look at the situation as an opportunity, not as a battle. if they chose to make it a battle, then it's a different story, but let them be the bad guy!

wp.