| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/24/2007 09:57:18 AM · #26 |
Would you get convicted of assault if you punched the driver? Yes. Because the judge isn't ruling based on emotion. If you break the law, there are penalties. The driver would get life and you would get convicted for simple assault.
How that pertains to this issue... If you are involved in the courts against this photog, don't do anything illegal until that is over. You already have the proof, just wait a while and see how the court rules. What you don't want to have happen is have your court case negatively effected because you broke copyright law. Im not siding w/ the photog, just be above all possibilities of losing this case due to something like this.
Hopefully this photog still has the photos. It seems like it would benefit him to produce them at this point. I would say make it clear that if he produces the images you will drop the charges and he can keep his fee.
I do feel bad, but buyer beware is still the issue. If this person had ripped off others, you could have found out before hiring them.
Don't listen to Saj, that was a terrible post. What he said is exactly what I have in my contract less the negative berrating tone. I tell all my couples that they are my photos and can't reproduce them. Wedding photography is not a scam at all. The high prices people pay come from their time being valuable and the fact that wedding photos are not the most difficult to take, but there is no redo. Not to mention the work flow involved in preparing so many photos.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 10:25:58 AM · #27 |
sounds as though they should have actually hired a professional, rather than someone that calls themself a professional.
yes they got screwed, but to some degree they scrwed themselves.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 10:51:37 AM · #28 |
I am thinking that unless a court "re-assigns" the copyright the scum bag still "owns" the images ... sorry doing anything with them is still infrengement and you will be in as deep of a pile of poo as the jerk that started this.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 10:54:24 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Go ahead and execute a copyright violation on the original photographer's work. You could get sued and then that photographer would have enough money to pay off the original plaintiff and then some :) |
YEP! |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 10:56:39 AM · #30 |
I wonder if it may be difficult for the photographer to argue copyright when, in effect, the customer is merely taking possession of that which they paid for per existing contract.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 10:59:54 AM · #31 |
| along the lines of what nomad said, how difficult would it be (or would have been) to have part of the settlement to be releasing any and all copyrights on the proofs so that they could have the editing and reprinting done. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 11:07:47 AM · #32 |
Seriously, don't do it. I know you want to print off these proofs, but they are not yours.
Our courts don't work like that. Just because he screwed you really bad, doesn't make what you want to do legal.
This guy is a scam artist, not some fool. He has done this before and it paid off well enough for him to repeat the same scam. This was planned out and everything has been thought of. He knows he will end up in court, but it still pays off for him. If you damage your case against him by illegally printing photos that are not yours, you are risking loosing completely and essentially playing a part in his scam. He needs you to do something like this to discredit you in court.
Picture him in court saying stuff like, "how can a thief, someone who steals my copyrighted images be accusing me of this scam?"
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 11:15:43 AM · #33 |
sorry to hear that...... that really sucks I hate to hear stories like this, weddings are so important and to keep the photos and screw people like that is so wrong. To me guy should still be ordered to release them when your in court also giving your money back.
I once helped a guy out as an assistant when I was learing how to shoot weddings and afterwards I never heard from him again, so I emailed him a couple to times to see how the shots came out or how I did and to thank him for letting me assit him and then after some research I found out that he did the same thing he screwed people over with their wedding photos I felt horrible even though I was not the photographer I was their but still felt bad cause I saw how happy the people were and then I found out he did this. Well he must have done this to a bunch of people because he must not have paid for his website name and someone (a victim of his scams) took it over and keep the name of his website and let everyone post their complaints with a big ass picture of him on the site as well. But that was a while ago the site is gone now, dont know if anyone ever got their pictures back.
Again sorry to hear that and if you have a very good scanner or know someone who does try scanning it in and then post a high res. scan up on the web so we dpcers here can try to get that text out of the photo for you, it should not be hard at all to remove.
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Seriously, don't do it. I know you want to print off these proofs, but they are not yours.
Our courts don't work like that. Just because he screwed you really bad, doesn't make what you want to do legal.
This guy is a scam artist, not some fool. He has done this before and it paid off well enough for him to repeat the same scam. This was planned out and everything has been thought of. He knows he will end up in court, but it still pays off for him. If you damage your case against him by illegally printing photos that are not yours, you are risking loosing completely and essentially playing a part in his scam. He needs you to do something like this to discredit you in court.
Picture him in court saying stuff like, "how can a thief, someone who steals my copyrighted images be accusing me of this scam?" |
Just read that you have a good point there!!
Message edited by author 2007-04-24 11:17:08.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 11:23:27 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Go ahead and execute a copyright violation on the original photographer's work. You could get sued and then that photographer would have enough money to pay off the original plaintiff and then some :) |
Good one! So true. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 11:23:28 AM · #35 |
I know this is off the issue at hand; but here's an idea for you.
Enlarge one of the photographs (ignore the banner) and have a portrait artist paint a copy of it. It might be a little pricey, but it would be a wonderful gift to the couple.
Just a thought... |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 11:46:00 AM · #36 |
******
Originally posted by jmssetzler":
"Go ahead and execute a copyright violation on the original photographer's work. You could get sued and then that photographer would have enough money to pay off the original plaintiff and then some." |
Photographer: "Well your honor, you see...I gave them proofs of their engagement photos to review and they removed my proof note and printed copies in violation of my copyrights."
Judge (to the couple): "Why did you do this?"
Couple: "We paid in full for the engagement and wedding photos. The photographer has not delivered anything to us but the proofs. We paid $xxxx.00 for photographs. The photographer took our money and ran. But had the balls to come and sue us for copyright infringement."
Judge: "Okay, I order the couple to return proofs and any copies derived once the photographer provides all contracted copies of both the engagement and wedding photos."
OTHERWISE, ANY JUDGE CAN HOLD ME IN CONTEMPT BECAUSE I'D HOLD HIM OR HER IN CONTEMPT AS WELL.
******
To me this situation is like whining about the health and safety of house burglers who get injured while illegally breaking into your house to steal your TV. I have no sympathy for such burglers. And I feel any judge who grants them compensation should be dragged out of court and beaten for enacting injustice.
Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
I do feel bad, but buyer beware is still the issue. If this person had ripped off others, you could have found out before hiring them. |
How...??? People are often so quiet on such things. Case in point...we still do not know who this photographer is.
******
Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
Don't listen to Saj, that was a terrible post. What he said is exactly what I have in my contract less the negative berrating tone. I tell all my couples that they are my photos and can't reproduce them. Wedding photography is not a scam at all. The high prices people pay come from their time being valuable and the fact that wedding photos are not the most difficult to take, but there is no redo. Not to mention the work flow involved in preparing so many photos. |
It's your choice to listen to me or not. But I think every common person feels that wedding photography becomes much more a scam when wedding photographers are so quick to protect their rights and dismiss the consumers.
Sorry, every photographer who ranted about copyright lost a bit of respect in my eyes.
Yes, there is a lot of work involved in wedding photography. A lot of post-processing. And a lot of risk in that it is only a one-shot deal. I think that is the reason it can garner the thousands of dollars for a photoshoot that it does.
But I do believe that most wedding photographers are double-billing. They behave as a "work for hire" working as a commissioned business person. But then charge as if they are an individual artist selling prints. Few commoners understand what they are getting for what they pay.
My opinion is that that if you're paid $4,000 to shoot the wedding, process the photos and do a photobook. Most people think they are paying for your skill and the labor involved. And that they get "their" photos.
Proof of this understanding is that no one, absolutely no one ever exclaims "these are the wedding photographers photos of our wedding".
And IMHO, anyone who does not grant reprints, and in this digital age give originals is stealing memories from their clients. In 50 yrs from now they probably won't even be able to find you, you might even be dead. They will have no means to replace their photos. If a fire burns their home and all their photos. And you are unfindable or dead. They have no right to reproduce their wedding photos.
Guess what,....I won't care about your rights. They're a priveledge granted by society. But if you abuse them - people won't care.
-----
The photography world needs to catch up to the digital world.
If you shoot a wedding. Get your money from your service fee (photography, processing, book-making, framing, etc) And charge a fair price on prints (just to cover cost, handling, etc). Explain that your prints might be slightly higher than Walmart's $2.85 for an 8x10. You might charge $6 instead. But that's because you ensure that the printer you use delivers them all prints properly printed with good tonal quality, etc.
If you really want to protect your reputation. Consider other ways to do so. First off, there is little to nothing to denote who the photographer was in a photo that is a mere copy and printed at Walmart. So I doubt the reputation is at stake. If they re-print it at Walmart then who knows who took it. Second, if you're prints are so much better (and quality controlled). Then denote it. Be it a marking on the back, whatever, etc.
Sorry, I just don't really see the "reputation" being at risk. Even if it's scanned and reprinted a dozen times until the photo quality starts to stink. There will be nothing to point that quality blame back to you by that time.
Originally posted by "nomad469":
I am thinking that unless a court "re-assigns" the copyright the scum bag still "owns" the images ... sorry doing anything with them is still infrengement and you will be in as deep of a pile of poo as the jerk that started this. |
Here you have to make a personal decision. Technically it is illegal. But is it immoral. And before anyone here gives you a whole lesson on morality and legality. Remember, almost everyone who argues for a point of obedience to legality breaks laws daily. Be it driving, or failing to cross as a cross walk. So in reality, we're pretty much all hypocrites. Just picking and choosing our the laws we obey because either a) we feel they are morally justified b) we fear.
Frankly, I personally have no moral qualms in this situation. Second, I'd have no fear in this sort of situation. (They wan't to sue me for copyright infringement I'd say "bring it on". Heck, it'd be worth it just to see said photographer and to tell them what they really are - even if it meant spending a night for contempt of court. It'd feel good. *lol*)
*****
Everyone get's concerned about their rights. We seldom are willing to put ourselves into the place of the consumer. It's why consumers get scewed left and right and seldom have any recourse.
I myself have been screwed over so many times by so called copyrights. Having lost hundreds and thousands of dollars over copyright issues. Guess what it did. Eventually I as a consumer said "If copyrights are not going to guarantee my rights as a consumer - I am not going to guarantee the rights of the copy holders."
This feeling will continue to grow as people continue to find themselves restricted and at a loss due to copyrights.
Couple case in points: I invested in a $500 portable video camera system. It was advertised and billed as an MPEG4 video camera. It was not. They used MPEG4 compression algorithms but then encapsulated the video in a proprietary format that was unviewable by anyone. The end result was a large investment in equipment. And the loss of all those videos and memories. I was left with a useless expensive novelty. I bought it because it was an MPEG4 (which is an open and convertible format so I could have kept my video memories for decades to come). Instead I was merely robbed out of hundreds of dollars and a number of memories all in the name of copyright.
This is just one of a number of times I have been suffered economic or personal loss in the name of copyright. Even now, we are possibly going to lose almost all of the online radio stations thanks to a copyright law.
Look, your right to copyrights is granted by the People to encourage art and innovation. Stifle that and the people will take away their grant to you of copyrights. It is not a guarantee. It is not even an inherent right. It is merely...a grant by the people to encourage creative juices within society. If that fails....than there is no point for copyrights.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 11:46:22 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
I know this is off the issue at hand; but here's an idea for you.
Enlarge one of the photographs (ignore the banner) and have a portrait artist paint a copy of it. It might be a little pricey, but it would be a wonderful gift to the couple.
Just a thought... |
BTW,...the copyright hounds will inform you that such is illegal as well. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 11:49:34 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
I know this is off the issue at hand; but here's an idea for you.
Enlarge one of the photographs (ignore the banner) and have a portrait artist paint a copy of it. It might be a little pricey, but it would be a wonderful gift to the couple.
Just a thought... |
BTW,...the copyright hounds will inform you that such is illegal as well. |
Yeah, I know. But an artist could change it enough to make it really hard to prove. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 11:55:34 AM · #39 |
I don't often agree with Jason, but in this case I do. Just because you steal a photo you aren't "liable" until you have caused monetary damage. What monetary damage is being done by copying the proofs?
At this point none of us really know the details of the contract or what exactly is going on so we are all out in left field.
Personally I say scan the photo, make yourself a decent 8x10 to salvage something, sue the bastard for your money back, then use the money to restage a photoshoot with a real photographer before too much time goes by. When you get the good photos, throw the 8x10 away because it's only going to remind you of the idiot.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 12:13:53 PM · #40 |
hey Saj
Dont get me wrong... the photog that we are discussing here is IMHO a true a-hole ... but the fact remains that the © law is there for a reason...to cover my butt and YOURS TOO.
Pain in the but as it may be there will be a time when you wish that the copyright law had even more teeth. Trust me !
I think that the best way to apporach this is to have the court to order that the images be provided ... the monies returned AND copyright reassigned.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 12:17:09 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't often agree with Jason, but in this case I do. Just because you steal a photo you aren't "liable" until you have caused monetary damage. What monetary damage is being done by copying the proofs? |
Loss of revenue is the damage that would be argued ... I know I know ... dont kill me ... but that is what the argument would likely be
(NOTE I DONT AGREE WITH THAT IN THIS CASE ... SO DONT FLAME ME !!!)
It is the same arguement that the RIAA uses ... see note above
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 12:31:20 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't often agree with Jason, but in this case I do. Just because you steal a photo you aren't "liable" until you have caused monetary damage. What monetary damage is being done by copying the proofs? |
Loss of revenue is the damage that would be argued ... I know I know ... dont kill me ... but that is what the argument would likely be
(NOTE I DONT AGREE WITH THAT IN THIS CASE ... SO DONT FLAME ME !!!)
It is the same arguement that the RIAA uses ... see note above |
Ya, I know, but in this case the revenue has already been paid. (At least that is my understanding.)
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 01:41:01 PM · #43 |
The problem is, the law is fairly black and white and would be in this situation. If the photographer sued for copyright infringement it would be the defendant that would have to pay all the legal fees if they lost.
whether or not the photographer took their money and provided no photos is a whole separate case - one in which the wedding party can sue for their money back. Don't add a counter-suit for copyright infringement onto that.
I've never heard the term "justifiable copyright violation" before and I doubt the court will start using it now. I also doubt that this photographer knows nothing about copyright laws and wouldn't know anything about them had it not been for this thread. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 02:09:29 PM · #44 |
Mega,
I think you are wrong w/ your opinion of this photographer. I think they very well know copyright law. this person ran a scam, they aren't just some fool. he has done it before and probably will do it again because teh penalties apparently don't outweigh the benefits. If you think this person doesn't know anything about the law you are probably mistaken. Personally I think the temptation to print his photo is bait so he can counter sue. if he does that and still looses, I bet the penalty won't be as bad as if there wasn't a counter suit. Its all a matter of dollars to this guy.
Example. He got paid $1500 for the wedding. Breach of contract occurs and someone sues him. If its an in and out win for the plantiff he may have to pay $1500 or more. If there is a counter suit and he is ordered to pay only $1000, he made $500. He has done this before so it apparently works as far as numbers are concerned.
My point is don't underestimate a con artist. The only way the OP can win this w/o any added headache and bullshit is to play by the rules. Don't infringe on his copyright and he will be left with no case at all. Infringe and you may end up seeing this guy walk away with your money, not providing any photos and you paying his court fees. Don't mess up your solid case. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 02:22:16 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Mega,
I think you are wrong w/ your opinion of this photographer. I think they very well know copyright law. this person ran a scam, they aren't just some fool. he has done it before and probably will do it again because teh penalties apparently don't outweigh the benefits. If you think this person doesn't know anything about the law you are probably mistaken. Personally I think the temptation to print his photo is bait so he can counter sue. if he does that and still looses, I bet the penalty won't be as bad as if there wasn't a counter suit. Its all a matter of dollars to this guy.
Example. He got paid $1500 for the wedding. Breach of contract occurs and someone sues him. If its an in and out win for the plantiff he may have to pay $1500 or more. If there is a counter suit and he is ordered to pay only $1000, he made $500. He has done this before so it apparently works as far as numbers are concerned.
My point is don't underestimate a con artist. The only way the OP can win this w/o any added headache and bullshit is to play by the rules. Don't infringe on his copyright and he will be left with no case at all. Infringe and you may end up seeing this guy walk away with your money, not providing any photos and you paying his court fees. Don't mess up your solid case. |
I believe you misunderstood my post - I was said I DOUBT the photographer knows nothing about copyright law ie he DOES know about copyright law. |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 03:49:12 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
The problem is, the law is fairly black and white and would be in this situation. If the photographer sued for copyright infringement it would be the defendant that would have to pay all the legal fees if they lost.
|
This is only the case if the photos are registered. I am going to guess that is not happening. I could be wrong though...
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 03:50:50 PM · #47 |
Does anybody notice how DPC threads take on a life of their own? The OP is long gone but we're all here still jawing at each other about something that happened to someone else?
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 03:53:37 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
The problem is, the law is fairly black and white and would be in this situation. If the photographer sued for copyright infringement it would be the defendant that would have to pay all the legal fees if they lost.
|
This is only the case if the photos are registered. I am going to guess that is not happening. I could be wrong though... |
regardless of whether they are registered or not by the photographer they are still copyrighted to him. Otherwise what you appear to be saying is that anything not registered is fair game (which would be for example 99% of the photos on this site). |
|
|
|
04/24/2007 03:54:50 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
The problem is, the law is fairly black and white and would be in this situation. If the photographer sued for copyright infringement it would be the defendant that would have to pay all the legal fees if they lost.
|
This is only the case if the photos are registered. I am going to guess that is not happening. I could be wrong though... |
regardless of whether they are registered or not by the photographer they are still copyrighted to him. Otherwise what you appear to be saying is that anything not registered is fair game (which would be for example 99% of the photos on this site). |
Yes, but only if they are registered does the loser of the lawsuit pay the winner's court costs...
|
|
|
|
04/24/2007 03:59:22 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by "nomad469":
Dont get me wrong... the photog that we are discussing here is IMHO a true a-hole ... but the fact remains that the © law is there for a reason...to cover my butt and YOU |
See, I have no regard for the law. Mind you, I seldom find myself in trouble with the law because my morals tend to exceed those of the law.
A legal system without justice is merely a thing to ignore. There is no justice in enforcing a copyright holder's rights and not the contracting couple. If a court were to do such, any person with good conscience could dismiss the legal system as injust and give it no regard.
As soon as we become more concerned with "laws" than we are with "justice" it is time to get rid of the laws.
Originally posted by "nomad469":
Pain in the but as it may be there will be a time when you wish that the copyright law had even more teeth. Trust me ! |
In truth, when that time comes it is doubtful that I'll be able to take advantage of it. The mere economic costs for the little guy in pursuing such claim seldom is feasible. And even with some of the more successful court wins the justice is usually minute. (ie: Microsoft versus the company that invented the optical mouse who were in negotiations with Microsoft to lease their technology when Microsoft up and stole. They receive $1 million dollars. How much money do you think Microsoft has made off of those mice? Did the little company win...no, not really.)
I personally believe that non-profit use should be acceptable. I do not mind if people use my art for non-profit uses.
To me, this is like the argument where one man offers to buy a neighbor's cow. He takes the cow but never makes payment. The neighbor goes and takes his cow back, only to be accused of stealing. Did he steal the cow? No, the contract was never kept therefore the cow still belonged to the neighbor.
Originally posted by "megatherian":
The problem is, the law is fairly black and white and would be in this situation. If the photographer sued for copyright infringement it would be the defendant that would have to pay all the legal fees if they lost. |
Then the law is poorly written and should be ignored and abused until which time it is modified to be a fair law or until it has zero power.
In this case, I would be leaping up and down with joy for the photographer in question to have the balls to sue me. Heck, I'd take the assault charge just to punch them in the face and exclaim "that's what you get for !@$% my wife and I's wedding memories".
Originally posted by "megatherian":
whether or not the photographer took their money and provided no photos is a whole separate case - one in which the wedding party can sue for their money back. Don't add a counter-suit for copyright infringement onto that. |
In this case I would seek a jury of farmers. And trust Thomas Jefferson's instincts. I think most people on a jury would shoot down any such claim by the photographer.
Look, courts can take years. In all likelihood the couple won't receive anything from the photographer even if they win the lawsuit because the photographer is probably broke and bankrupt. (Usually the case with those who rip people off be it wedding photography or home construction.)
So in the meantime, console yourselves with what little you can scrape out of it.
Originally posted by "megatherian":
I've never heard the term "justifiable copyright violation" before and I doubt the court will start using it now. I also doubt that this photographer knows nothing about copyright laws and wouldn't know anything about them had it not been for this thread. |
Go read the Constitution. It states the following, this is the premise upon which ALL copyright & patent law stands. Without this premise Congress does not have the authority to pass copyright law.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
It's rather clear that this photographer's "art" is not useful in it's lack of delivery. Therefore I see no reason to recognize his or her right to copy.
BTW...laws are never black and white. Laws are always being challenged and over-turned and re-implemented and re-over-turned. In fact, one copyright law which did not set a copyright length was overturned by a judge as unconstitutional because the Constitution only allows Congress to pass copyright laws that are enacted for a limited time period.
Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
Example. He got paid $1500 for the wedding. Breach of contract occurs and someone sues him. If its an in and out win for the plantiff he may have to pay $1500 or more. If there is a counter suit and he is ordered to pay only $1000, he made $500. He has done this before so it apparently works as far as numbers are concerned. [quote]
Except, unless he is a lawyer he made no profit because the time in court equals the total $1,500 in lawyer fees.
[quote="jmnuggy"]The only way the OP can win this w/o any added headache and bullshit is to play by the rules. |
Here we differ greatly. I was repeatedly told this type of philosophy for years in various situations in school. It doesn't work. Especially if there is no justice or the requirement for justice is to expensive.
What worked? The exact opposite. Years told "fighting never solves anything". But it does. In fact it is often times the only thing to resolve a matter. Years told you get more bees with honey than vinegar. And that being mean and angry in customer service will get you farther. But this is not true. There reaches a point where you have to be forceful and a jerk. Otherwise you'll just be taken. Ironically, I've now had this confirmed by a couple of people who worked as phone operators that they were instructed to always say no if the people were polite. And that only the really agitated and angry ones were they supposed to move forward or give claim too. Go figure...but that's how the system works. It's not geared for the nice people.
Originally posted by "drachoo":
Yes, but only if they are registered does the loser of the lawsuit pay the winner's court costs... |
And thank you for pointing that out. I also am not sure if you can seek damages either. Only the cessation and collection of any offending works in the perpetrators possession. But I may be wrong about that. It's been a few years since I reviewed all that when I did the filing for my friend's album.
|
|
