DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Photos from DPC being used without permission
Pages:  
Showing posts 176 - 200 of 263, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/16/2010 11:51:13 PM · #176
Well done everyone... Facebook page and business website are gone, absolutely gone... Hopefully someone did think to mirror the site before everything went away... That would be some fine evidence. But I don't think it's necessary given the incredible amount of stupidity she's displayed...

So, nice work - I can't tell you how awesome it is to be a part of this group.

-Cory
 01/17/2010 12:06:29 AM · #177
At the risk of sounding horrible perverse, this was the most fun I've had in a long time. What an awesome group of people on this site. A thing of beauty when we take action as a group. Almost makes me feel sorry for the poor idiot woman.
 01/17/2010 12:12:25 AM · #178
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Just a search of all photos with out "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited" moniker on PhotoBucket.

That was my point about getting rid of the transparent overlay - makes them easier to find than printscreen-crop-save-as-newname.


I agree..
 01/17/2010 12:16:15 AM · #179
Originally posted by tanguera:
At the risk of sounding horrible perverse, this was the most fun I've had in a long time. What an awesome group of people on this site. A thing of beauty when we take action as a group. Almost makes me feel sorry for the poor idiot woman.


Talk about a witch hunt...
 01/17/2010 12:28:30 AM · #180
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Just a search of all photos with out "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited" moniker on PhotoBucket.

That was my point about getting rid of the transparent overlay - makes them easier to find than printscreen-crop-save-as-newname.


I agree..


I dont think this woman would have taken the time to printscreen-crop-save-as-newname... she was too lazy to even change the names to begin with. I think the transparent overlay would have prevented her from downloading the bulk of the photos she did. She would have went elsewhere to steal her shots.
 01/17/2010 12:40:43 AM · #181
I don't think she's "lazy"...it looks like she made a business out of selling the photos.

She's doing better than me.

Then again, I do have to spend time taking the photos first. ;)

01/17/2010 12:54:04 AM · #182
so did she close her account here or did DPC delete her?
 01/17/2010 12:56:31 AM · #183
Aw man - I missed all the excitement and now everything is down and gone. :o(

01/17/2010 12:58:13 AM · #184
Well, this is no child, and the intent was to unlawfully steal.. As you may know, I'm not super big into law enforcement, but this is one of those times where there are real victims that must be protected...

So.. I called and left a detailed message with the local PD, I would suggest that ALL of us do the same, and I am quite sure the appropriate course of action will be set in motion...

Chichester Police Department
www.chichesternh.org

22 Main Street
Chichester, NH 03258-6508
(603) 798-4911

ETA: Report the Pizza place, as there is still evidence in the bathroom of the establishment that must be secured before it can be removed by the perp.

I also (as you might) suggested that a search of her residence would likely turn up quite a bit more evidence..

Deborah Seamon (Deborah Bolduc Kenneally)

Dominick's Pizza Pasta & Things
346 Suncook Valley Rd
Chichester, NH 03258

Location: Bathroom

Message edited by author 2010-01-17 01:03:02.
 01/17/2010 01:05:18 AM · #185
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Doing the same search on Flickr shows up a bunch of DPChallenge images on the first page of results. Some of them have already been nailed in the comments.

Thanks Steve. I found one of mine there and reported the abuse/theft to copyright@yahoo-inc.com. The info for reporting copyright violations on Flickr is here
 01/17/2010 01:20:18 AM · #186
And thank you Neil for your RSS list of thumbnails. I found one of my images there, and it is one of my favorites. I have it for sale on DPCPrints.
 01/17/2010 04:19:17 AM · #187
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Doing the same search on Flickr shows up a bunch of DPChallenge images on the first page of results. Some of them have already been nailed in the comments.


So I finally have a picture stolen - nay, several - but it turns out I stole them myself.
That it's come to this...

:)
 01/17/2010 06:37:18 AM · #188
Originally posted by krnodil:
Originally posted by krnodil:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Did anyone recognize these...she definitely "talks" of taking these.

//ulocal.wmur.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=5168728&as=63455&b

It would be "fitting" if they were stolen too.


the snowshoe hare is Alain's


also, someone left a comment on the goat picture laying claim to it, but I don't know who it is...

edit to add - actually, it looks like the same person commented on both the goat and hare images, so maybe the goat pic is Alain's?


Yep the goat is also mine... here it is
01/17/2010 06:59:04 AM · #189
One comment on the stolen rabbit pick â I didnât realize there where wild bunnies in NHâ LOL.
 01/17/2010 07:45:21 AM · #190
I emailed a friend of mine who is a lawyer, the firm he works for has a couple of major publication magazines as clients. He has alot of experience with copyright laws. He told me that next time something like this happens. Instead of going after the person as this case was handled. Someone should purchase their own photo from the subject first. This gives you proof that she is selling your copyrighted material and you have a far better chance of success in court. He said screen shots are not going to be very good evidence especially if submitted by a bunch of photographers who have above average photoshop skills, If she has a lawyer he or she will argue the evidence could be tampered with, Which will cost you more money to prove it was not because you will have to bring in an expert to testify that it is valid. Just some friendly and free legal advice for next time.
 01/17/2010 08:34:26 AM · #191
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I emailed a friend of mine who is a lawyer, the firm he works for has a couple of major publication magazines as clients. He has alot of experience with copyright laws. He told me that next time something like this happens. Instead of going after the person as this case was handled. Someone should purchase their own photo from the subject first. This gives you proof that she is selling your copyrighted material and you have a far better chance of success in court. He said screen shots are not going to be very good evidence especially if submitted by a bunch of photographers who have above average photoshop skills, If she has a lawyer he or she will argue the evidence could be tampered with, Which will cost you more money to prove it was not because you will have to bring in an expert to testify that it is valid. Just some friendly and free legal advice for next time.


I think they would take into consideration, the credibility of DPC as a professional site, and not a "bunch of photographers who have above average photoshop skills". Who's side are you on anyway???
 01/17/2010 08:36:45 AM · #192
It was very good advice from Bugzeye and it should be taken notice of. No, DPC would not be seen as a 'professional' site :)
 01/17/2010 08:40:35 AM · #193
Courts take nothing into consideration, only facts. Brian is right.
 01/17/2010 09:04:48 AM · #194
I am just telling you what a very experienced lawyer said. If you are an even more experienced lawyer, then please by all means give us some even better advice.

Originally posted by love:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I emailed a friend of mine who is a lawyer, the firm he works for has a couple of major publication magazines as clients. He has alot of experience with copyright laws. He told me that next time something like this happens. Instead of going after the person as this case was handled. Someone should purchase their own photo from the subject first. This gives you proof that she is selling your copyrighted material and you have a far better chance of success in court. He said screen shots are not going to be very good evidence especially if submitted by a bunch of photographers who have above average photoshop skills, If she has a lawyer he or she will argue the evidence could be tampered with, Which will cost you more money to prove it was not because you will have to bring in an expert to testify that it is valid. Just some friendly and free legal advice for next time.


I think they would take into consideration, the credibility of DPC as a professional site, and not a "bunch of photographers who have above average photoshop skills". Who's side are you on anyway???
01/17/2010 09:19:35 AM · #195
No need to get huffy - I'm just questioning. Of course, I'm not "and even more experienced lawyer".. sheesh

Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I am just telling you what a very experienced lawyer said. If you are an even more experienced lawyer, then please by all means give us some even better advice.

Originally posted by love:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I emailed a friend of mine who is a lawyer, the firm he works for has a couple of major publication magazines as clients. He has alot of experience with copyright laws. He told me that next time something like this happens. Instead of going after the person as this case was handled. Someone should purchase their own photo from the subject first. This gives you proof that she is selling your copyrighted material and you have a far better chance of success in court. He said screen shots are not going to be very good evidence especially if submitted by a bunch of photographers who have above average photoshop skills, If she has a lawyer he or she will argue the evidence could be tampered with, Which will cost you more money to prove it was not because you will have to bring in an expert to testify that it is valid. Just some friendly and free legal advice for next time.


I think they would take into consideration, the credibility of DPC as a professional site, and not a "bunch of photographers who have above average photoshop skills". Who's side are you on anyway???
01/17/2010 09:28:04 AM · #196
There was really no need for you to question me either. If I was on the other side I would be offering the legal advice to the person who stole our photos.

Originally posted by love:
No need to get huffy - I'm just questioning. Of course, I'm not "and even more experienced lawyer".. sheesh

Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I am just telling you what a very experienced lawyer said. If you are an even more experienced lawyer, then please by all means give us some even better advice.

Originally posted by love:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I emailed a friend of mine who is a lawyer, the firm he works for has a couple of major publication magazines as clients. He has alot of experience with copyright laws. He told me that next time something like this happens. Instead of going after the person as this case was handled. Someone should purchase their own photo from the subject first. This gives you proof that she is selling your copyrighted material and you have a far better chance of success in court. He said screen shots are not going to be very good evidence especially if submitted by a bunch of photographers who have above average photoshop skills, If she has a lawyer he or she will argue the evidence could be tampered with, Which will cost you more money to prove it was not because you will have to bring in an expert to testify that it is valid. Just some friendly and free legal advice for next time.


I think they would take into consideration, the credibility of DPC as a professional site, and not a "bunch of photographers who have above average photoshop skills". Who's side are you on anyway???
01/17/2010 09:30:57 AM · #197
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I don't think she's "lazy"...it looks like she made a business out of selling the photos.

She's doing better than me.

Then again, I do have to spend time taking the photos first. ;)


So did she.

It all depends on what your definition of "taking" is.

~Terry
 01/17/2010 10:03:43 AM · #198
Originally posted by love:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I emailed a friend of mine who is a lawyer, the firm he works for has a couple of major publication magazines as clients. He has alot of experience with copyright laws. He told me that next time something like this happens. Instead of going after the person as this case was handled. Someone should purchase their own photo from the subject first. This gives you proof that she is selling your copyrighted material and you have a far better chance of success in court. He said screen shots are not going to be very good evidence especially if submitted by a bunch of photographers who have above average photoshop skills, If she has a lawyer he or she will argue the evidence could be tampered with, Which will cost you more money to prove it was not because you will have to bring in an expert to testify that it is valid. Just some friendly and free legal advice for next time.


I think they would take into consideration, the credibility of DPC as a professional site, and not a "bunch of photographers who have above average photoshop skills". Who's side are you on anyway???

while i understand your passion and appreciate where you're coming from, dpc is in no way a 'professional' site; just because there are professionals that participate here does not put it in the same realm as something like the Professional Photographers of America, the National Press Photographers Association, etc...
 01/17/2010 10:16:37 AM · #199
its good advice, and since we know she has someones picture on the wall at that pizza place maybe getting someone to go photograph it and see about getting it down would be a good idea.

I see her account here is deleted, did DPC do that or did she do it herself?
 01/17/2010 10:33:46 AM · #200
Bugz advice is solid and should be taken on board though, it was kind of you to go out of your way to ask your lawyer friend.

But on the flip side of that, look what was done versus, finding a photograph, buying the photograph, spending money to go to a lawyer, serving writs that could take weeks, going to court, taking weeks, the whole process could have taken months and months and it would still have only been one photograph that she stole, she could keep on stealing them adn selling others for a profit. Where as,yesterday = Her whole website was taken down, her advertising on Facebook was taken down, her reputation has been very much tarnished. She has learnt a valuable lesson here, and one that I am sure is going to have many ripple affects in the next couple of weeks.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:53:03 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:53:03 PM EDT.