Someone is using my photo without permission
March 21, 2006 9:25 PM Subscribe
I post photos of my dogs onto my personal website. I just found someone on Ebay selling prints and t-shirts using a photo of one of my dogs.
The only thing she changed is she cropped the photo and adjusted the coloration of the photo to be more artsy. I am bothered by this because she did not ask for permission and she is making money off of a photo I took. I'm not sure what to do or what I can even do.
The photo I took of my dog
One of the items on Ebay
The only thing she changed is she cropped the photo and adjusted the coloration of the photo to be more artsy. I am bothered by this because she did not ask for permission and she is making money off of a photo I took. I'm not sure what to do or what I can even do.
The photo I took of my dog
One of the items on Ebay
You ask them to stop, or to pay you whatever you want for the right to reproduce your photographs. If they don't stop, you sue them. They do not have the right to reproduce your photographs.
You also notify eBay immediately.
posted by unSane at 9:37 PM on March 21, 2006
You also notify eBay immediately.
posted by unSane at 9:37 PM on March 21, 2006
If your photo wasn't copyrighted I don't think there's much you can do.
All photos are copyrighted.
posted by nathan_teske at 9:38 PM on March 21, 2006
All photos are copyrighted.
posted by nathan_teske at 9:38 PM on March 21, 2006
You could contact the seller, too (looks like she's selling prints for forty bucks a pop, yow); maybe if you call the number on that page and speak to her personally, she'll be reasonable. Can't hurt to try the old, "I'd really appreciate it if you'd take these down" method first. It's possible she found the pictures somewhere else from someone else who'd ganked them and claimed them for their own. Such is the nature of putting up pictures on Ye Olde Intarwebbe.
posted by Gator at 9:39 PM on March 21, 2006
posted by Gator at 9:39 PM on March 21, 2006
It makes no difference if it's a dog or a person. You own the exclusive rights to reproduce a photograph you took and unless you explicitly transfer it, nobody else has that right. You can sue them for the market value of the rights of reproduction for what they've sold. If you've registered the copyright, it's better, because you don't have to prove any loss and the damages are statutory, but you don't have to have registered it to have a cause for action.
posted by unSane at 9:39 PM on March 21, 2006
posted by unSane at 9:39 PM on March 21, 2006
It looks like from the history that they haven't sold any... at least from the shirt. I would ask her to take them down, but I don't know if I would sue over it necessarily.
Get a real lawyer's advice if need be, but if she's not selling any you may not have that good of a case in terms of damages that would make litigation worthwhile.
posted by banished at 9:42 PM on March 21, 2006
Get a real lawyer's advice if need be, but if she's not selling any you may not have that good of a case in terms of damages that would make litigation worthwhile.
posted by banished at 9:42 PM on March 21, 2006
Photos are copyrighted when they are created.
Write her and cc ebay. Tell her to stop immediately and to account for all sales thus far. Ask for her lawyer's name.
Be firm. She stole your property, and she knows it.
posted by words1 at 9:43 PM on March 21, 2006
Write her and cc ebay. Tell her to stop immediately and to account for all sales thus far. Ask for her lawyer's name.
Be firm. She stole your property, and she knows it.
posted by words1 at 9:43 PM on March 21, 2006
She can't do that legally. The copyright belongs to the person who took the photo unless it was for hire so she is stealing it.
Decide what you want in terms of monetary compensation or pulling the item or whatever and call her up and tell her that. If she declines ebay might shut her down and an offical looking letter to her cc'ed to ebay almost certainly will. Unless it's a top seller I'd guess she will just drop your photo and move on to another stolen image.
If it's a really big deal to you, buy one of her items before you initiate contact so you have "evidence".
posted by fshgrl at 9:43 PM on March 21, 2006
Decide what you want in terms of monetary compensation or pulling the item or whatever and call her up and tell her that. If she declines ebay might shut her down and an offical looking letter to her cc'ed to ebay almost certainly will. Unless it's a top seller I'd guess she will just drop your photo and move on to another stolen image.
If it's a really big deal to you, buy one of her items before you initiate contact so you have "evidence".
posted by fshgrl at 9:43 PM on March 21, 2006
SwingingJohnson, copyright doesn't necessarily mean that you get paid. And actually, the Numa Numa kid violated the original artist's work by distributing it if he did so without their consent, even if he didn't make money. Every site that hosts said file also violates the rights of the original copyright owner.
In this case, the thief is attempting to make money off of an image that someone else created (and therefore is the owner of the copyright) under current copyright laws.
The irony here is that the theiving artist is creating this under the guise of Pop Art. Andy Warhol's famous early Flower paintings were the subject of a lawsuit by the original photographer (Patricia Caulfield), who's photgraph was published in a magazine. IIRC, she sued as permission was not requested to use her work, and there was an out of court settlement.
Disaster, you can contact eBay, as they have strict copyright violation rules. Might want to perhaps contact a lawyer and get a C&D out there against this person as well. Assuming you can afford to go that far.
posted by missed at 9:52 PM on March 21, 2006
In this case, the thief is attempting to make money off of an image that someone else created (and therefore is the owner of the copyright) under current copyright laws.
The irony here is that the theiving artist is creating this under the guise of Pop Art. Andy Warhol's famous early Flower paintings were the subject of a lawsuit by the original photographer (Patricia Caulfield), who's photgraph was published in a magazine. IIRC, she sued as permission was not requested to use her work, and there was an out of court settlement.
Disaster, you can contact eBay, as they have strict copyright violation rules. Might want to perhaps contact a lawyer and get a C&D out there against this person as well. Assuming you can afford to go that far.
posted by missed at 9:52 PM on March 21, 2006
On her eBay Store page there are many commercial images which I very much doubt she has licensed. If she doesn't respond politely to you, I'm sure that IP lawyers from several multi-national media conglomerates would be interested in knowing about her commercial use of protected work.
posted by D.C. at 9:52 PM on March 21, 2006
posted by D.C. at 9:52 PM on March 21, 2006
Contact eBay under their VeRO program. They'll send you some forms to fill out. Do so and they'll kill the auction immediately and provide you with a means of killing future auctions that violate your copyright.
posted by dobbs at 10:02 PM on March 21, 2006
posted by dobbs at 10:02 PM on March 21, 2006
Oh, and I suggest you don't contact the seller. It's a waste of time and you should bring sellers like this to eBay's attention anyway. They shouldn't be making profit off of other people's works.
The VeRO program works pretty fucking fast. I used it to have one of my client's (unreleased) albums yanked. It was down within a day and never appeared again from any other seller, prior to the official relase date.
posted by dobbs at 10:04 PM on March 21, 2006
The VeRO program works pretty fucking fast. I used it to have one of my client's (unreleased) albums yanked. It was down within a day and never appeared again from any other seller, prior to the official relase date.
posted by dobbs at 10:04 PM on March 21, 2006
Art (including photos) are copyrighted when they are created. Contact her. Be mean!
posted by Ostara at 10:04 PM on March 21, 2006
posted by Ostara at 10:04 PM on March 21, 2006
One more thing... I saw that photo on another site recently. I think it might have been cuteoverload.com or something similar (it was linked off the blue or metachat). It was part of a compilation of pictures of animals in casts. If you didn't submit to them, you may want to look for it, though it wasn't for profit and was in some good company.
posted by dobbs at 10:07 PM on March 21, 2006
posted by dobbs at 10:07 PM on March 21, 2006
You could, I dunno, let it go. Were you planning on selling images of your pug? Have you, or your pug, suffered loss of income or other damages because someone is selling (a highly modified version of) your pug's picture? How have you, or your pug, been harmed? I bet the answer to all of the above is "no". Why sweat it?
posted by tiny purple fishes at 10:24 PM on March 21, 2006
posted by tiny purple fishes at 10:24 PM on March 21, 2006
If you look at her Ebay store, she is not afraid to violate copyrights.
posted by LarryC at 10:37 PM on March 21, 2006
posted by LarryC at 10:37 PM on March 21, 2006
tiny purple fishes, if you check out her main page, all of those things may be true. Roy is apparently on an Animal Planet show (although I can't tell what it's about). I'm guessing celebridogs' proxies control their images just like celebrities do.
posted by booksandlibretti at 10:41 PM on March 21, 2006
posted by booksandlibretti at 10:41 PM on March 21, 2006
b&l: OK, I didn't realize that Roy was a celebrity. I went by the poster's description of "my personal website". Nevertheless, it doesn't seem as though the image the Ebayer is selling is of Roy in particular, just of some pug that happens to be Roy and that nobody other than Roy and his close friends and family would know is Roy. So I'm still wondering what the damage is. (Shouldn't it be the Warhol estate that's up in arms?)
posted by tiny purple fishes at 10:51 PM on March 21, 2006
posted by tiny purple fishes at 10:51 PM on March 21, 2006
You could, I dunno, let it go. Were you planning on selling images of your pug? Have you, or your pug, suffered loss of income or other damages because someone is selling (a highly modified version of) your pug's picture?
According to US federal law, if you are aware of an infringement on your copyrights and don't actively seak to protect them you may no longer be entitled to them. The case law around this is long, messy, and tangled, but it basically comes down to this:
Since it can now (thanks to this thread) be demonstrated that disater77 was aware of someone violating his copyrights, if he doesn't take measures to stop it he may forfeit ANY right to ANY compensation for ANY such images at ANY time in the future.
Yeah, maybe, maybe not, and it doesn't hurt him now, but down the road, who knows? And anyway with the stakes potentially so high, would you take that chance?
My advice: strongly worded cease and desist via registered mail and cc:ed to ebay. And if she ever sells enough shirts to make it worth your while (say, a couple hundred), sue her for all that money.
I mean, honestly, Warhol-ripping-off (and his estate certainly also has a case, BTW) pug-ripping-off lady, how hard is it to license the image of the neighbor's dog? Hell, if I had one I'd GPL it to you, if you only ASKED instead of just STEALING.
posted by ChasFile at 11:00 PM on March 21, 2006
According to US federal law, if you are aware of an infringement on your copyrights and don't actively seak to protect them you may no longer be entitled to them. The case law around this is long, messy, and tangled, but it basically comes down to this:
Since it can now (thanks to this thread) be demonstrated that disater77 was aware of someone violating his copyrights, if he doesn't take measures to stop it he may forfeit ANY right to ANY compensation for ANY such images at ANY time in the future.
Yeah, maybe, maybe not, and it doesn't hurt him now, but down the road, who knows? And anyway with the stakes potentially so high, would you take that chance?
My advice: strongly worded cease and desist via registered mail and cc:ed to ebay. And if she ever sells enough shirts to make it worth your while (say, a couple hundred), sue her for all that money.
I mean, honestly, Warhol-ripping-off (and his estate certainly also has a case, BTW) pug-ripping-off lady, how hard is it to license the image of the neighbor's dog? Hell, if I had one I'd GPL it to you, if you only ASKED instead of just STEALING.
posted by ChasFile at 11:00 PM on March 21, 2006
Response by poster: Were you planning on selling images of your pug?
Well actually I do sell some things with his photo on them at cafepress.com. I don't know how that might affect things.
I'm not the suing type, I just don't like people trying to make money using my dog's photo. I will fill out the VeRO forms and fax them tomorrow.
posted by disaster77 at 11:05 PM on March 21, 2006
Well actually I do sell some things with his photo on them at cafepress.com. I don't know how that might affect things.
I'm not the suing type, I just don't like people trying to make money using my dog's photo. I will fill out the VeRO forms and fax them tomorrow.
posted by disaster77 at 11:05 PM on March 21, 2006
Of course, you could go the other direction and release the picture under a creative commons license. That would make her use legal and fair, which appears to be what you are looking for in the long run.
posted by tkolar at 11:18 PM on March 21, 2006
posted by tkolar at 11:18 PM on March 21, 2006
anyone here have an accurate estimate of what it would cost in legal fees to actually sue someone for this? i highly doubt the cost of a lawsuit would be anywhere near being worth it even if they had sold "a couple hundred" t-shirts
posted by 5bux at 11:35 PM on March 21, 2006
posted by 5bux at 11:35 PM on March 21, 2006
I would suggest taking a screenshot of the active auction right away... just in case she gets wind of this thread or something and pulls it. That way you will have proof of the auctions existence (because even if she pulls it now she might try to put it up again at another time, or sell the art somewhere else).
It's not about the money. Your rights have been violated and you have been blatantly stolen from. Go after her with all you've got.
posted by RoseovSharon at 12:30 AM on March 22, 2006
It's not about the money. Your rights have been violated and you have been blatantly stolen from. Go after her with all you've got.
posted by RoseovSharon at 12:30 AM on March 22, 2006
Yeah, I'll bet she found the photo on that "animals in casts" site, and didn't bother to search for the original creator before making the shirt. That was a bad move, sure, but do you really want to get official *without* first trying to talk to her? I'd think someone who's "not the suing type" would at least make an attempt at contact before invoking authorities. Anyway, I'd suggest it as the human thing to do.
I'll also second tkolar's suggestion to check out the various creative commons licenses. Think about what you might accept from her - say, attribution and a couple of free shirts? Would that be enough? Hell, who knows, exploring the idea might even get you to change the way you feel about this kind of borrowed, manipulated usage.
posted by mediareport at 12:48 AM on March 22, 2006
I'll also second tkolar's suggestion to check out the various creative commons licenses. Think about what you might accept from her - say, attribution and a couple of free shirts? Would that be enough? Hell, who knows, exploring the idea might even get you to change the way you feel about this kind of borrowed, manipulated usage.
posted by mediareport at 12:48 AM on March 22, 2006
According to US federal law, if you are aware of an infringement on your copyrights and don't actively seak to protect them you may no longer be entitled to them.
I'm fairly sure that only applies to Patents, not Copyright.
posted by Olli at 1:48 AM on March 22, 2006
I'm fairly sure that only applies to Patents, not Copyright.
posted by Olli at 1:48 AM on March 22, 2006
Yeah, I'll bet she found the photo on that "animals in casts" site, and didn't bother to search for the original creator before making the shirt. That was a bad move, sure, but do you really want to get official *without* first trying to talk to her? I'd think someone who's "not the suing type" would at least make an attempt at contact before invoking authorities. Anyway, I'd suggest it as the human thing to do.
Exactly right.
I really don't understand why copyright questions round here seem to provoke such a flurry of copyright-nazi responses asserting that there's been 'OMG TERRIBLE STEALING!!11' or whatever. It's the Internet. Copyright infringement isn't that black and white.
posted by reklaw at 2:10 AM on March 22, 2006
Exactly right.
I really don't understand why copyright questions round here seem to provoke such a flurry of copyright-nazi responses asserting that there's been 'OMG TERRIBLE STEALING!!11' or whatever. It's the Internet. Copyright infringement isn't that black and white.
posted by reklaw at 2:10 AM on March 22, 2006
Olli: it definitely applies to copyrights and trademarks too, though IANAL.
posted by polyglot at 2:15 AM on March 22, 2006
posted by polyglot at 2:15 AM on March 22, 2006
Olli: it definitely applies to copyrights and trademarks too, though IANAL.
After a quick search, Wikipedia has this:
"As a trademark must be used in order to maintain rights in relation to that mark, a trademark can be 'abandoned' or its registration can be cancelled or revoked if the mark is not continuously used. By comparison, patents and copyrights cannot be 'abandoned' and a patent holder or copyright owner can generally enforce their rights without taking any particular action to maintain the patent or copyright. Additionally, patent holders and copyright owners may not necessarily need to actively police their rights. However, a failure to bring a timely infringement suit or action against a known infringer may give the defendant a defense of implied consent or estoppel when suit is finally brought."
So we were both kind of wrong.
In summary: if disaster77 doesn't do something in a reasonable time frame then this particular ebayer may have an arguement against her. This will not in any way weaken her rights over the image in future cases though.
posted by Olli at 2:48 AM on March 22, 2006
After a quick search, Wikipedia has this:
"As a trademark must be used in order to maintain rights in relation to that mark, a trademark can be 'abandoned' or its registration can be cancelled or revoked if the mark is not continuously used. By comparison, patents and copyrights cannot be 'abandoned' and a patent holder or copyright owner can generally enforce their rights without taking any particular action to maintain the patent or copyright. Additionally, patent holders and copyright owners may not necessarily need to actively police their rights. However, a failure to bring a timely infringement suit or action against a known infringer may give the defendant a defense of implied consent or estoppel when suit is finally brought."
So we were both kind of wrong.
In summary: if disaster77 doesn't do something in a reasonable time frame then this particular ebayer may have an arguement against her. This will not in any way weaken her rights over the image in future cases though.
posted by Olli at 2:48 AM on March 22, 2006
Ask nicely first.
But upon looking at her ebay store, there's tons of awful, awful things there, which nobody should be allowed to own.
posted by beerbajay at 3:32 AM on March 22, 2006
But upon looking at her ebay store, there's tons of awful, awful things there, which nobody should be allowed to own.
posted by beerbajay at 3:32 AM on March 22, 2006
According to US federal law, if you are aware of an infringement on your copyrights and don't actively seak to protect them you may no longer be entitled to them.
Although I believe you are confusing copyright and trademark law, there is in fact a three-year statute of limitations on copyright infringement, running from the date the claim accrues. When the claim accrues is debatable. Trademark policing is an entirely different story.
posted by anathema at 3:54 AM on March 22, 2006
Although I believe you are confusing copyright and trademark law, there is in fact a three-year statute of limitations on copyright infringement, running from the date the claim accrues. When the claim accrues is debatable. Trademark policing is an entirely different story.
posted by anathema at 3:54 AM on March 22, 2006
How did you find the ebay auction? Did you just stumble on it?
You've been pirated!
posted by ph00dz at 5:06 AM on March 22, 2006
You've been pirated!
posted by ph00dz at 5:06 AM on March 22, 2006
Contact her, offer to license the image for a fee and a percentage of sales. If she won't agree, sue her ass.
posted by orthogonality at 5:53 AM on March 22, 2006
posted by orthogonality at 5:53 AM on March 22, 2006
According to US federal law, if you are aware of an infringement on your copyrights and don't actively seak to protect them you may no longer be entitled to them.
I'm fairly sure that only applies to Patents, not Copyright.
OMG! It's trademarks that you must protect, not copyrights or patents!
posted by delmoi at 8:57 AM on March 22, 2006
Response by poster: How did you find the ebay auction? Did you just stumble on it?
I was just searching for pug art on Ebay. I saw one of them and I thought "that looks just like Roy!" and then "wait a second, that IS Roy."
posted by disaster77 at 9:44 AM on March 22, 2006
I was just searching for pug art on Ebay. I saw one of them and I thought "that looks just like Roy!" and then "wait a second, that IS Roy."
posted by disaster77 at 9:44 AM on March 22, 2006
I noticed the e-bay item is no longer up. Just wondering if you ended up taking some action and if so what, if you don't mind me asking.
posted by iconjack at 7:58 PM on March 28, 2006
posted by iconjack at 7:58 PM on March 28, 2006
Response by poster: I used Ebay's VeRO program. They wanted a link to the original photo and that's it. It was pretty easy to do.
posted by disaster77 at 9:26 PM on March 29, 2006
posted by disaster77 at 9:26 PM on March 29, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by nathan_teske at 9:35 PM on March 21, 2006