| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/17/2010 06:39:22 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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. |
According to eHow, the criminal offense is as listed below: (Bold added to text by me.)
Willful, intentional violation of copyright can be considered criminal infringement under three circumstances. The act is criminal infringement if it was for commercial or financial gain, if more than $1,000 in retail value was reproduced or distributed in a 180-day period, or a work being prepared for commercial distribution was disseminated on a public computer network. The penalties for criminal infringement are described in Title 18, section 2319 of the U.S. Code. These range from imprisonment of one to 10 years, plus fines, depending on the nature of the violation, the value of the infringing items and previous violations.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2010 07:18:49 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
According to eHow, the criminal offense is as listed below: (Bold added to text by me.)
Willful, intentional violation of copyright can be considered criminal infringement under three circumstances. The act is criminal infringement if it was for commercial or financial gain, if more than $1,000 in retail value was reproduced or distributed in a 180-day period, or a work being prepared for commercial distribution was disseminated on a public computer network. The penalties for criminal infringement are described in Title 18, section 2319 of the U.S. Code. These range from imprisonment of one to 10 years, plus fines, depending on the nature of the violation, the value of the infringing items and previous violations. |
Bango! 3 for 3. |
|
|
|
01/17/2010 11:28:24 PM · #228 |
| Perhaps we are going about this the wrong way. If she is this enterprising and energetic, maybe we should be hiring her to market our photos. :P |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 04:50:29 AM · #229 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by ambaker:
According to eHow, the criminal offense is as listed below: (Bold added to text by me.)
Willful, intentional violation of copyright can be considered criminal infringement under three circumstances. The act is criminal infringement if it was for commercial or financial gain, if more than $1,000 in retail value was reproduced or distributed in a 180-day period, or a work being prepared for commercial distribution was disseminated on a public computer network. The penalties for criminal infringement are described in Title 18, section 2319 of the U.S. Code. These range from imprisonment of one to 10 years, plus fines, depending on the nature of the violation, the value of the infringing items and previous violations. |
Bango! 3 for 3. |
unreal. I don't know if this was the right thing to do, but I emailed the library where she's exhibited in the past. I think it's great when libraries promote photography, and I hate that she took advantage of them. Do you think we should contact the Audubon society as well?
Message edited by author 2010-01-18 05:32:47. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 06:18:22 AM · #230 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by ambaker:
According to eHow, the criminal offense is as listed below: (Bold added to text by me.)
Willful, intentional violation of copyright can be considered criminal infringement under three circumstances. The act is criminal infringement if it was for commercial or financial gain, if more than $1,000 in retail value was reproduced or distributed in a 180-day period, or a work being prepared for commercial distribution was disseminated on a public computer network. The penalties for criminal infringement are described in Title 18, section 2319 of the U.S. Code. These range from imprisonment of one to 10 years, plus fines, depending on the nature of the violation, the value of the infringing items and previous violations. |
Bango! 3 for 3. |
Read it carefully, only the first one possibly applies. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 07:43:47 AM · #231 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by ambaker:
According to eHow, the criminal offense is as listed below: (Bold added to text by me.)
Willful, intentional violation of copyright can be considered criminal infringement under three circumstances. The act is criminal infringement if it was for commercial or financial gain, if more than $1,000 in retail value was reproduced or distributed in a 180-day period, or a work being prepared for commercial distribution was disseminated on a public computer network. The penalties for criminal infringement are described in Title 18, section 2319 of the U.S. Code. These range from imprisonment of one to 10 years, plus fines, depending on the nature of the violation, the value of the infringing items and previous violations. |
Bango! 3 for 3. |
unreal. I don't know if this was the right thing to do, but I emailed the library where she's exhibited in the past. I think it's great when libraries promote photography, and I hate that she took advantage of them. Do you think we should contact the Audubon society as well? |
Where is the library? |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 08:56:35 AM · #232 |
| it is in chichester, nh. her shows in march of 2009. It also refers to her show in march 09 at the Audubon society on concord. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 09:14:21 AM · #233 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
unreal. I don't know if this was the right thing to do, but I emailed the library where she's exhibited in the past. I think it's great when libraries promote photography, and I hate that she took advantage of them. Do you think we should contact the Audubon society as well? |
the bold is mine. if you're questioning your action, you probably should run it by  langdon or the sc first before doing it.
i don't mean to single you out, wendy, but i don't have time to go through 8 pages of post to pull out all the posts of people doing things that may be crossing some lines.
this type of vigilantism is getting out of hand. regardless of how wrong copyright violations may be, if individuals take it upon themselves to go after "perpetrators" without following due process, those individuals can find themselves not only putting themselves at risk, but also putting this site at risk.
i hope the sc will step in and do something about this before things get way out of hand and somebody does something seriously stupid... |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 09:14:54 AM · #234 |
Deborah Kenneally
is her other name and she is a road agent, I don't know what a road agent is
anyways, are these anyone photos??//www.suncookvalleysun.com/chichester/2009/3_4_09/index.htm
Message edited by author 2010-01-18 09:16:28. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 09:58:06 AM · #235 |
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by vawendy:
unreal. I don't know if this was the right thing to do, but I emailed the library where she's exhibited in the past. I think it's great when libraries promote photography, and I hate that she took advantage of them. Do you think we should contact the Audubon society as well? |
the bold is mine. if you're questioning your action, you probably should run it by langdon or the sc first before doing it.
i don't mean to single you out, wendy, but i don't have time to go through 8 pages of post to pull out all the posts of people doing things that may be crossing some lines.
this type of vigilantism is getting out of hand. regardless of how wrong copyright violations may be, if individuals take it upon themselves to go after "perpetrators" without following due process, those individuals can find themselves not only putting themselves at risk, but also putting this site at risk.
i hope the sc will step in and do something about this before things get way out of hand and somebody does something seriously stupid... |
It was stupid to step in the middle of things. It won't happen again. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 10:11:12 AM · #236 |
The "road agent" is another Kenneally, David by name. Just happens to be mentioned in the blurb right below Deborah's...
R.
Message edited by author 2010-01-18 10:11:31. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 10:23:30 AM · #237 |
| How about writing to the paper and letting the residents of Chichester know that the images in the show/s were not hers?? |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 10:28:44 AM · #238 |
A lot of the suggestions in this thread would have the effect of humiliating her and ruining her local reputation, maybe, but they probably won't do anything to "stop" the business. All she will have to do is scream "victim," produce a couple of shots that *are* hers, and if her community is anything like a lot, she will be believed over those people on the "big bad Internet."
I would suggest (and I am by no means a lawyer) that if one of your pictures was used, make sure it is registered then contact a lawyer who specializes in copyright and/or Internet law and proceed. I would think that this is the only way you can recoup any losses she has caused, and possibly shut her down, permanently.
While burning villages may be fun, unfortunately, it may just cause her to change villages.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2010 10:39:24 AM · #239 |
 vawendy you have done nothing wrong. NONE of us have everyone has been within the bounds of the law. Everything that has been done is within the realms of the law. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 07:52:06 PM · #240 |
Karmat is right. The lynch mob methods being used here are not going to solve the problem, in fact could make it worse. Just as some of you took screen shots of her pages, She may have screen shots of the messages some of you left in her guestbook and on her facebook page. Which would probably be enough evidence for her to sue a few people for slander and or defamation of character. You have to really be careful in this day and age. As I said a couple of pages ago it is better to let the law handle the laws. If you do not feel that this whole mess is worth the price of legal advice then it shouldn't be worth putting yourselves at risk of being sued either. There is nothing to gain unless you take her to court and seek compansation but because you have no hard evidence that she is selling your work for profit, That is going to be very difficult to prove to a judge or jury. So it is best to either get a lawyer to do your footwork or sit back quietly and watch her like a hawk, maybe she will continue to sell stuff and then you can bust her and go after her properly.
And for the record, I am still on your side... |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 08:02:55 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
Karmat is right. The lynch mob methods being used here are not going to solve the problem, in fact could make it worse. Just as some of you took screen shots of her pages, She may have screen shots of the messages some of you left in her guestbook and on her facebook page. Which would probably be enough evidence for her to sue a few people for slander and or defamation of character. You have to really be careful in this day and age. As I said a couple of pages ago it is better to let the law handle the laws. If you do not feel that this whole mess is worth the price of legal advice then it shouldn't be worth putting yourselves at risk of being sued either. There is nothing to gain unless you take her to court and seek compansation but because you have no hard evidence that she is selling your work for profit, That is going to be very difficult to prove to a judge or jury. So it is best to either get a lawyer to do your footwork or sit back quietly and watch her like a hawk, maybe she will continue to sell stuff and then you can bust her and go after her properly.
And for the record, I am still on your side... |
In order for her to file a lawsuit against someone for calling her a liar and a theif she would need to be able to prove she didn't steal. Inocent until proven guilty is only true in the criminal law courts. If she files a civil suit claiming that we defamed her she would need to show that what we said was in fact false and that our intent was to lie about her. She obviously can not do that. If she was dumb enough to seek out civil damages from someone on this site she would find herself in even more touble because at one point or another she would need to lie under oath.
Message edited by author 2010-01-18 20:08:44. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 08:21:24 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
it is in chichester, nh. her shows in march of 2009. It also refers to her show in march 09 at the Audubon society on concord. |
I have been following this thread for awhile. I want to chime in that any photographers who have had their works stolen can and should contact a good lawyer.
The hard evidence is there. The library where she displayed will most assuredly have records that she did an exhibit there. Insurance claims/papers need to be signed off between both parties (and in most cases a description of the individual works along with price value) BEFORE any showing. This is to ensure that both parties will be protected in case of theft or other disaster. Depending on the wording of that document it may or may not have a clause or area to write in that speaks about the artist selling there works on the library grounds. Given that this is a public library run under city/state government they will be required to keep records - unlike the pizza place where she may have friends who may not have had her sign such an agreement. A good lawyer will be able to subpoena those records for court purposes.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2010 08:27:27 PM · #243 |
On the other hand, We would need to prove she is guilty, We would need hard evidence to prove she stole the images and made a profit from them and right now hard evidence is not available. Screenshots from her webpage will not prove that she sold anything. If the court would accept it as evidence at best it could prove intent. But intent does not make her guilty of actually making a profit which is the key factor in finding her guilty.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2010 08:30:22 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
On the other hand, We would need to prove she is guilty, We would need hard evidence to prove she stole the images and made a profit from them and right now hard evidence is not available. Screenshots from her webpage will not prove that she sold anything. If the court would accept it as evidence at best it could prove intent. But intent does not make her guilty of actually making a profit which is the key factor in finding her guilty. |
Read my above statement....I don't know how long City Libraries are required to keep the paperwork but again there is a strong possibility there *IS* hard evidence out there. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 08:41:27 PM · #245 |
That is not what I meant by hard evidence. Hard Evidence is proof that she is actually making a profit from someone elses work. For example. It is like a drug deal. Cops typically will set up a buy and send someone to the drug dealers home. Once the dealer sells the drugs to the cop then they have hard evidence. Without that hard evidence they do not have a strong enough case to charge the dealer with selling the drugs.
Originally posted by CNovack:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
On the other hand, We would need to prove she is guilty, We would need hard evidence to prove she stole the images and made a profit from them and right now hard evidence is not available. Screenshots from her webpage will not prove that she sold anything. If the court would accept it as evidence at best it could prove intent. But intent does not make her guilty of actually making a profit which is the key factor in finding her guilty. |
Read my above statement....I don't know how long City Libraries are required to keep the paperwork but again there is a strong possibility there *IS* hard evidence out there. |
|
|
|
|
01/18/2010 08:52:42 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by Chinarosepetal:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by ambaker:
According to eHow, the criminal offense is as listed below: (Bold added to text by me.)
Willful, intentional violation of copyright can be considered criminal infringement under three circumstances. The act is criminal infringement if it was for commercial or financial gain, if more than $1,000 in retail value was reproduced or distributed in a 180-day period, or a work being prepared for commercial distribution was disseminated on a public computer network. The penalties for criminal infringement are described in Title 18, section 2319 of the U.S. Code. These range from imprisonment of one to 10 years, plus fines, depending on the nature of the violation, the value of the infringing items and previous violations. |
Bango! 3 for 3. |
Read it carefully, only the first one possibly applies. |
Really? Looked to me like there was definitely more than $1,000 in retail value (each photo is potentially worth that much), and that site was over 10 months old... Oh, and it was being distributed on a computer network... Not sure what you're reading there, but to me I see, three for three... |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 09:30:32 PM · #247 |
Probably there are a lot of people posting to this thread that really ought to cool their jets. I'm pretty sure that no one on this site lost any significant amount of money, and even if they did, the mob mentality ruined their chances of proving it in a court of law. Good luck collecting damages; especially if you haven't registered your copyright.
As for hunting down every member of every club she ever belonged to in order to tittle-tattle on her and tell her friends and associates what an awful person she is, well, I do hope we all grow up soon and remember to quit posting all our private bits in the Personal Life section here at DPC lest someday someone rile up a crowd and burn one of our own villages. Apparently it doesn't even take a crazy person to start cyberstalking war these days.
Really, all this fake outrage would be a lot more amusing if it weren't so pathetic. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 09:35:32 PM · #248 |
AMEN!!!!
Originally posted by L2:
Probably there are a lot of people posting to this thread that really ought to cool their jets. I'm pretty sure that no one on this site lost any significant amount of money, and even if they did, the mob mentality ruined their chances of proving it in a court of law. Good luck collecting damages; especially if you haven't registered your copyright.
As for hunting down every member of every club she ever belonged to in order to tittle-tattle on her and tell her friends and associates what an awful person she is, well, I do hope we all grow up soon and remember to quit posting all our private bits in the Personal Life section here at DPC lest someday someone rile up a crowd and burn one of our own villages. Apparently it doesn't even take a crazy person to start cyberstalking war these days.
Really, all this fake outrage would be a lot more amusing if it weren't so pathetic. |
|
|
|
|
01/18/2010 09:44:24 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by L2:
... I'm pretty sure that no one on this site lost any significant amount of money ... |
Sometimes it's not about the money - it's about principle. It just doesn't feel right to let someone get away with blatent disregard for something that's not theirs (and happens to belong to you).
This whole situation saddens me on two points: First, that people are so dishonest to do something like this in the first place, and second, the attitude of "just let it alone, it's not worth the trouble to pursue it".
I think the second point propagates the first...if there's no consequence why should people worry about being honest and respectful. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 09:46:17 PM · #250 |
| What's done is done. I am sure there have been some valuable lessons learnt from this whole thing. |
|
