Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The people behind these services don;t want to be held responsible and some belive that its their right to engage in copyright violations because they are not the ones who did the actual "stealing" of the copywritted material. Our morals and ethics have been thrown away under the guise of Freedom to exchange in the information age.
I support legislation that would give some teeth to enforcement of overseas infringers which is what that was supposed to do in principal but they had far reaching impacts for sites here in the US and were rightfully shelved. If that were to have passed it would have some large consequences, large media companies/associations have always attempted to stifle technology and IMO piracy has not been their only motive. Let me ask you something, have you ever wondered why CD players don't have a record function? Certainly this would be a function a lot of people would be interested in and mass produced CD burners are cheap.
There's a tax on them making them more expensive that goes to the RIAA, if you want to record on a standalone CD player you pay the RIAA for that right. That's where the more expensive "audio" CD comes in because these recorders will reject any CD without the audio label. They wanted to do the same thing with MP3 players, CD/DVD burners etc.
Sites like City-Data would be under the gun and could end up disappearing under that legislation. There was just far too much power that would have been given to the large media corporations just like was done with CD recorders.
There is a line, laws cannot be made to protect a few that will negatively impact the whole.
If you took them, or Facebook to small claims court, don't they have to appear, or lose?
I'm not sure how small claims works, but is it possible that filing at a low level with a financial risk for the person or Facebook would cause either to get their ducks in a row?
I don't know how it would apply here but that becomes problematic too. I did business within 6 counties in my state, all the business was conducted over the phone or their residence. If I got stiffed I had to file in the county they resided.
This is the way I would handle it. Figure out a per-picture licensing fee, plus a per-picture penalty for usage without permission. Add those figures together and multiply that by the number of pictures to calculate the bill for unauthorized use. Have a LAWYER send the bill to individual along with a demand of payment on his letterhead. Those pictures will come down so fast it'll make your head spin.
I think it is very much Facebook's job to do exactly that. I provide them with the exact info they need to remove the photos and they should do so.
Did you bother to read this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog
The other party is claiming that they have a right to post the photos, and you're claiming they're not.
....post?
kdog has correctly assessed the situation and hit the crux of the matter.
This dispute has evolved from "he said" to "he said -- she said."
That is where Facepuke draws the line and bows out. It is neither the function nor purpose, nor is it within the means or purview of Facepuke to resolve or mediate disputes between parties.
That is the job of Courts.
What Facepuke is telling you in effect is to either file a law suit and get a court order, or shut up, because they do not intend to take any further action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazynip
He actually replied back saying that since I posted them on the web, he has the right to post them on my facebook. His response was something to the effect of "if you dont want other people using them, dont post them on the web.
I understand. I know the type of person you're talking about and unfortunately the world is full of them, plus the younger crowd has this attitude that they should be able to download anything for free simply because it exists. The guy has basically told you to take a friggin' flyin' freakin' leap. You need to slap him down, not Facepuke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazynip
Yes, they are watermarked. Yes, I know I can sue him. It would cost me a ton of money, and I have the chances or recovering basically zero. I found the idiot works at Family Dollar.
Some "things legal" lend themselves to pro se action. For example, filing a lawsuit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act are often best done pro se, rather than retaining an attorney.
Certain types of copyright cases also lend themselves to pro se actions. Dealing with copyrighted photos is one such action.
If you search the web, I'm sure you'll find either a web-site, or a forum, that will guide you on pro se copyright actions. Your primary concern will be jurisdiction and venue, and then making sure he is properly served. I doubt that he would respond, and if he doesn't, then you motion for default judgment. You'll have to transfer the judgment from your State to his State, and then you can attach a lien to any property he owns, seize his bank accounts and you can garnishee his wages. And depending on the State, judgments can be renewed, so you have a good long time to pound him.
If you get a properly filed judgment, you can also sell the judgment. You will not get face value, but at least you'll get something up front.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazynip
Just because you CAN do something does not mean it is right, or legal.
I would not disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazynip
The onus is on me to protect them, and I have no issue with personal use, however when I find my photos stolen from my website (I DO NOT post stuff on facebook) and then posted on Facebook, I believe at that point, the onus is on FACEBOOK or whatever webpage/ISP/host to remove them.
Facepuke did its job.
Facepuke did what you asked, except now there is a question of ownership, and it is not Facepuke's job to decide those matters. Surely you can see the potential liability Facepuke would face if they made a decision and erred, hence their reluctance to act as a surrogate court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazynip
The guy knows how to steal, and actually if you read the DMCA counter notice, it says right on it, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. So the guy is lying on a federal form.
Okay, so you have evidence. Use it against him.
I don't want to rain on your parade, but quite simply, a question of true authorship/ownership has been raised, and it is not Facepuke's job to decide issues of fact. That is the job of a court. Facepuke has made their position quite clear, and they will not act until you get a court order. So continuing to rant will not resolve the problem.
Since you already plan on suing some realtors, why don't you have your attorney just add him as a defendant? You can have multiple defendants.
I was led to them actually. I am in the middle of issues with several Realtors using my photos online in their listings as well as Facebook. The Realtors I will end up suing because I CAN get damages out of them. After being tipped off on the realtors, I went and found several others on my own using my photos. It's amazing that people have zero ****ing morals anymore.
Ahh, realtors. Well, this changes things a bit...for the better.
Keep in mind a few things about realtors:
-Most don't have a lot of money so they're cheap (generally).
-They must build a PERSONAL reputation in the areas they selling (you can use this).
-They are managed by a broker (unless they're the broker) in their office (you can use this.
-There is a real estate board whom they must be licensed through (you can use this).
If it's a realtor, I'd explain it quite plainly and clearly...if they don't stop using the photos, you will do a few things:
-Go to their broker to explain one of their realtors is stealing.
-Go to the real estate board (or whatever they call it in your state) and report this realtor and what they're doing.
-Start a campaign to let EVERYONE (in the areas they sell into) know about what this person is doing.
I was led to them actually. I am in the middle of issues with several Realtors using my photos online in their listings as well as Facebook. The Realtors I will end up suing because I CAN get damages out of them. After being tipped off on the realtors, I went and found several others on my own using my photos. It's amazing that people have zero ****ing morals anymore.
....
This Realtor absolutely supports you in your efforts.
I have competition stealing my photos routinely, and have had success in having them remove them, both directly and through their web services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetRick
Ahh, realtors. Well, this changes things a bit...for the better.
Keep in mind a few things about realtors:
-Most don't have a lot of money so they're cheap (generally).
-They must build a PERSONAL reputation in the areas they selling (you can use this).
-They are managed by a broker (unless they're the broker) in their office (you can use this.
-There is a real estate board whom they must be licensed through (you can use this).
If it's a realtor, I'd explain it quite plainly and clearly...if they don't stop using the photos, you will do a few things:
-Go to their broker to explain one of their realtors is stealing.
-Go to the real estate board (or whatever they call it in your state) and report this realtor and what they're doing.
-Start a campaign to let EVERYONE (in the areas they sell into) know about what this person is doing.
You will most-likely have your photos removed.
If it is on a national firm's hosted site, involve the national firm, as well as the franchise owner, the office's managing broker.
Ask if they have a firm policy on copyright infringement. If not, you may have a nice playing card if you have to escalate your efforts.
Additionally, if the photos are just hotlinked from your site, just for fun you might put text across the photo saying something like "This photo has been stolen by someone with the morals of a billy goat" until it is taken down. Sometimes it takes the billy goat several days to figure out what happened.
Additionally, if the photos are just hotlinked from your site, just for fun you might put text across the photo saying something like "This photo has been stolen by someone with the morals of a billy goat" until it is taken down. Sometimes it takes the billy goat several days to figure out what happened.
You can do this with .htaccess and never have to mess with the original file, the beauty here is it could take them much longer than a few days until someone else alerts them. The parasite will have the image cached on their local machine, when they load the page the image is pulled from the cache so they never it's being replaced. When someone else that has never visited the page goes there it is the replcement image.
My favorite is using a 1px*30000px transparent .gif. They usually never specify the dimensions so their layout will break with a giant horizontal scroll bar. I'm sure it drives a lot of people bananas since there is no visual reason why it breaks.
I have photos on SmugMug now that are right click protected (one of their options). I also have them in a private gallery (and remove the ability for the search engines to pick them up). A few years ago, I had people stealing my photos off the web and they weren't just dumb kids, either. Maybe look for better places to post them. I don't know why places like Facebook can't prevent right click copying or turn off photos on the search engines. Is that something difficult to do?
You can do this with .htaccess and never have to mess with the original file, the beauty here is it could take them much longer than a few days until someone else alerts them. The parasite will have the image cached on their local machine, when they load the page the image is pulled from the cache so they never it's being replaced. When someone else that has never visited the page goes there it is the replcement image.
My favorite is using a 1px*30000px transparent .gif. They usually never specify the dimensions so their layout will break with a giant horizontal scroll bar. I'm sure it drives a lot of people bananas since there is no visual reason why it breaks.
Great tip.
Thanking....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
I have photos on SmugMug now that are right click protected (one of their options).
Okay, but I can use screen capture software to snag stuff like that. ABBYY screen shot reader will grab it.
A photo is automatically copyrighted the instant you capture the image on any medium, be it a transparency, negative, or memory stick (in a digital camera).
It's good for 25 years.
Anyone can reproduce your image, if and only if they credit you for the image.
If you want more than that, then you'll have to register you photos with the US Copyright Office. You can do that on-line and you can digitize all of your photos and put them in a metafile and send it to the Copyright Office and your done. In the old days, we used to tape maybe 2 dozen to 4 dozen photos to contact paper, take a photo of the mass of photos and send that in. The point I'm trying to make is that you can copyright your photos en masse.
If your photos are registered with the US Copyright Office, and you're using Tin-Eye and find your photo somewhere it shouldn't be, then all you have to do is notify the FBI.
Protecting...
Mircea
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
