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 201 - 225 of 263, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/17/2010 10:41:10 AM · #201
I wish the info was still there -- I'd like to contact the local clubs/shows/pizza places, etc that she's had her stuff and inform them as to what's been taking place. I don't know that things were up long enough for any of her local areas to find out about her. So she still can continue selling/showing. I would have liked that closed down.
 01/17/2010 10:44:56 AM · #202
Originally posted by coryboehne:
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


You can contact the pizza place or the police as indicated here. I called the pizza place last night and they seemed a little concerned but it's hard to tell in a 5 minute phone call. I'm sure the information will have a ripple effect throughout the little town. Her mom had commented on her albums and when she goes back to look will ask the question of why it's no longer there and the answer will probably be 'it's been hacked', 'a virus', or a miriad of other excuses that will not point the finger at her illegal activities.
 01/17/2010 10:50:14 AM · #203
Originally posted by vawendy:
I wish the info was still there -- I'd like to contact the local clubs/shows/pizza places, etc that she's had her stuff and inform them as to what's been taking place. I don't know that things were up long enough for any of her local areas to find out about her. So she still can continue selling/showing. I would have liked that closed down.


Perhaps we need to find out where she had her showings, and let them know that some/all of the photos may not have been taken by her.

Same for local craft fair/associations.

We have the PDFs of some of her pages that yo_spiff captured. I grabbed all the shots I could--including some of her gallery and craft displays--from my internet cache and they are filed for safe keeping.

It's one thing for people to take our pictures and put them up on the internet without attribution. Most of these cases are innocent uses of the internet to say "here are photos I like". It is still bothersome that the circumstances usually "imply" that they are "their" photos, but at least they don't usually lie and say they took them explicitly.

It's a totally different level to go around pretending you took them, displaying at shows, displaying and selling signed prints. And then using them for publicity, making up stories about when you took the picture and posting them on a local news website.

To me, that's much more criminal.

Message edited by author 2010-01-17 10:50:49.
 01/17/2010 11:01:02 AM · #204
Originally posted by JulietNN:
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.


First of all thank you.

Originally posted by JulietNN:
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.


That is true, But can you order her to not do it again, can you be assured she will not be like Rose and change her name and start over again and again. She more than likely still has all those photos on her hardrive so she is already half way there if she is stupid enough to do it again, she has already proven to be stupid enough to try it once. Each time she does it she could get away with it for a few months or longer before she is found out, On the other hand If she has a Judge fine her and order her to stop, she is more likely to follow that order.
I guess what I am saying is when someone breaks a law. It is best to let the law handle it. Vigilantism is not always the best measure to take.

Then there is the matter of compensation vs satisfaction. I am sure everyone who took part in this effort to shut her down has a sense of satisfaction. But the people who may have wanted to be compensated for their stolen work are pretty much out of luck because she has shut it down before any submittable evidence could be obtained. I am speaking in general on this because the one and only photo of mine that she lifted is not really worth anything to me. It was taken to try and win a virtual ribbon and until today completely forgotten about. But others who had photos taken that they are actually trying to sell either here on DPC prints or somewhere else may have a different view.

Hopefully she will not be dumb enough to start over.

Edit to change a word ref: GeneralE's post.

Message edited by author 2010-01-17 11:23:11.
 01/17/2010 11:09:23 AM · #205
Brian's of course right.

The main problem is that she probably still has a basement full of crafts with other people's photos on it.
And it looks from the shots like she was selling matted prints of various sizes as well.

Even if she deletes the stuff of her hard drive (and I kind of doubt she will), who doesn't think she's still going to try to sell the goods she has?

Message edited by author 2010-01-17 11:09:50.
 01/17/2010 11:11:03 AM · #206
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I guess what I am saying is when someone breaks a law. It is best to let the law handle it. Vigilance is not always the best measure to take.

Vigilance (maintaining heightened awareness) is good -- it's vigilantism (acting oneself on the information) which is bad. (I'm agreeing with you!)
 01/17/2010 11:14:07 AM · #207
I didn't think that sounded right when i typed it. But it is 5AM here and I haven't slept yet too tired to reference check my words. thanks for correcting it for me.

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I guess what I am saying is when someone breaks a law. It is best to let the law handle it. Vigilance is not always the best measure to take.

Vigilance (maintaining heightened awareness) is good -- it's vigilantism (acting oneself on the information) which is bad. (I'm agreeing with you!)
01/17/2010 12:08:32 PM · #208
Wow. Looks like I completely missed the party, and I even found one of my pics in Neil's thumb post...
Thanks, everyone!
 01/17/2010 12:22:05 PM · #209
You guys and gals rock!
01/17/2010 01:03:51 PM · #210
Originally posted by CoreyFitz:
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?


You will see in my post above, the contact information for the police in her hometown...

Call them, get them to secure the pizza parlor photos as evidence... Seriously.
 01/17/2010 01:09:02 PM · #211
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Brian's of course right.

The main problem is that she probably still has a basement full of crafts with other people's photos on it.
And it looks from the shots like she was selling matted prints of various sizes as well.

Even if she deletes the stuff of her hard drive (and I kind of doubt she will), who doesn't think she's still going to try to sell the goods she has?


call the police.. Have them secure the art in the pizza parlor and search her home... It's a crime, there is still hard evidence... Why does everyone think that all the evidence is gone... It's not, just the digital evidence (which is often terribly ineffective in court...), so, if you want prosecution, call the cops..

-Cheers
 01/17/2010 01:11:37 PM · #212
I have to wonder if the police would even treat this seriously. Though certainly illegal, they might find such a thing to be a nuisance that saps resources from their immediate responsibilities. I think I am in agreement that the legal route could provide little to no resolution at the end of a lot of cost and effort.
 01/17/2010 01:16:16 PM · #213
I've been following this thread with interest. I guess I'm curious as to the logistics of it all. If she stole the images from DPC they wouldn't be good enough resolution for prints and crafts and the like would they??
 01/17/2010 01:19:24 PM · #214
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I have to wonder if the police would even treat this seriously. Though certainly illegal, they might find such a thing to be a nuisance that saps resources from their immediate responsibilities. I think I am in agreement that the legal route could provide little to no resolution at the end of a lot of cost and effort.


Well, they are obligated to investigate crime. If enough of us call, they will be "forced" to look into it, if they should find that a crime has occurred, then they will pass it to the district attorney, who will file charges against the subject..

Again, call the police department, if enough of us do it, they will act (or at least it's much more probable..)
 01/17/2010 01:20:20 PM · #215
Originally posted by ahaze:
I've been following this thread with interest. I guess I'm curious as to the logistics of it all. If she stole the images from DPC they wouldn't be good enough resolution for prints and crafts and the like would they??


I was thinking the same thing :)

Still, that only makes it worse, our work is being displayed at it's very worst... For that reason alone, I'm really glad she ignored me..
 01/17/2010 01:21:27 PM · #216
Originally posted by ahaze:
I've been following this thread with interest. I guess I'm curious as to the logistics of it all. If she stole the images from DPC they wouldn't be good enough resolution for prints and crafts and the like would they??


I thought about that too. I think using Genuine Fractals or some other sophisticated software, you can upsize many of these images and get something of (at best) presentable quality. You or I may see flaws in the resulting print, but the casual purchaser probably wouldn't.
 01/17/2010 01:23:39 PM · #217
Originally posted by ahaze:
If she stole the images from DPC they wouldn't be good enough resolution for prints and crafts and the like would they??

I've gotten prints off of low res images that were surprisingly good. Also considering the crafts she was making from some of them were lacquered over, I think they would have looked fine to the intended customers.
 01/17/2010 01:27:48 PM · #218
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by ahaze:
If she stole the images from DPC they wouldn't be good enough resolution for prints and crafts and the like would they??

I've gotten prints off of low res images that were surprisingly good. Also considering the crafts she was making from some of them were lacquered over, I think they would have looked fine to the intended customers.


Of course, you're right.... I sometimes forget that very few people look at photos like we do. I can barely imagine paying for a so-so product.
 01/17/2010 03:48:53 PM · #219
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I have to wonder if the police would even treat this seriously. Though certainly illegal, they might find such a thing to be a nuisance that saps resources from their immediate responsibilities. I think I am in agreement that the legal route could provide little to no resolution at the end of a lot of cost and effort.


Well, they are obligated to investigate crime. If enough of us call, they will be "forced" to look into it, if they should find that a crime has occurred, then they will pass it to the district attorney, who will file charges against the subject..

Again, call the police department, if enough of us do it, they will act (or at least it's much more probable..)

I'm not so sure -- despite the RIAA I don't think this (copyright infringement) is a "crime" but rather a civil offense. It uld probably be better for someone local to go there and purchase the photos (I assume they're placed there for sale) along with a witness. If they are labelled so as to indicate they were taken by her, then that would constitute commercial fraud, and that would be a crime of interest to the consumer protection department of the DA's office.
 01/17/2010 04:06:25 PM · #220
Another benefit of not being popular or being a good photographer....nothing gets stolen. :D
01/17/2010 05:54:00 PM · #221
The actions taken here in regard to this matter are good for a short term solution...but, we really need to become advocates for our own future and find a way to change the copyright infringement laws. The laws need to better reflect the electronic age that we live in and make it easier for photographers to pursue remedy when the laws have been broken.
 01/17/2010 06:07:49 PM · #222
I am not positive, But I myself believe that this would fall under the defintion of a crime, If she is signing the photos someone else took with her name. That would be a form of idenity theft. Which not only is a crime but a felony.

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm not so sure -- despite the RIAA I don't think this (copyright infringement) is a "crime" but rather a civil offense. It uld probably be better for someone local to go there and purchase the photos (I assume they're placed there for sale) along with a witness. If they are labelled so as to indicate they were taken by her, then that would constitute commercial fraud, and that would be a crime of interest to the consumer protection department of the DA's office.
01/17/2010 06:09:39 PM · #223
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I am not positive, But I myself believe that this would fall under the defintion of a crime, If she is signing the photos someone else took with her name. That would be a form of idenity theft. Which not only is a crime but a felony.

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm not so sure -- despite the RIAA I don't think this (copyright infringement) is a "crime" but rather a civil offense. It uld probably be better for someone local to go there and purchase the photos (I assume they're placed there for sale) along with a witness. If they are labelled so as to indicate they were taken by her, then that would constitute commercial fraud, and that would be a crime of interest to the consumer protection department of the DA's office.


I'm not so sure about that :)

I don't even think we can shoehorn it into forgery..

Anybody for a GTG in NH ? ;)
 01/17/2010 06:23:25 PM · #224
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I have to wonder if the police would even treat this seriously. Though certainly illegal, they might find such a thing to be a nuisance that saps resources from their immediate responsibilities. I think I am in agreement that the legal route could provide little to no resolution at the end of a lot of cost and effort.


You might be surprised. Here in our little bitty town, population under 17,000 and about 40K in the county, at least one officer in the police department is a cyber crime specialist. Friend of mine's son. I was very surprised to find out that there was one here.
01/17/2010 06:23:46 PM · #225
i am a little pssed of that not one of my shots were liberated
but then and again as a famous weddingphotographer it would be suicidal to do such a thing
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 09:05:09 AM

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: 08/03/2025 09:05:09 AM EDT.