Bottom Time Photo wrote:
Well, what did your contract with her say?  Did it limit what she can and cannot do with the photo?

No contract. Snapshot I took at a convention, put it up on Flickr.

Moon Pix Photography wrote:
Question;

How did she get a file size large enough to print a poster?

Kinda what I was thinking!! 

-Sebastian- wrote:
No contract. Snapshot I took at a convention, put it up on Flickr.

Well, as the photographer you own the copyright to it.  Send her a DMCA notice and have her take it down.

ACPhotography wrote:
Is it registered, if not you should do that immediately...

Then go speak to an IP lawyer...

Hmm, that's $35 for a picture I did not want to sell anyway (I don't have a model release, obviously). If I do that I would have to probably go all the way and sue her to get my money's worth...

Moon Pix Photography wrote:
Where can I get one?

That sucks... I have no legitimate advice... but am curious to see what others think.  The fact that it was edited to a great degree has me wondering... is it like music?  If one manipulates it to a certain degree does it change the status of ownership?

Question;

How did she get a file size large enough to print a poster?

They just used the biggest size on Flickr I guess. Probably looks awful, especially after that poor editing job.

Bottom Time Photo wrote:

Well, as the photographer you own the copyright to it.  Send her a DMCA notice and have her take it down.

Did that and probably will do it again, but the real issue is that she has been selling it....

nyk fury wrote:
not only all that, but she also really messed up your pic too.

+1000

-Sebastian- wrote:
Did that and probably will do it again, but the real issue is that she has been selling it....

She's been selling something you own.  I don't see why you shouldn't get the profits.  Unfortunately, that means hiring a lawyer.

And oh god, do not let that girl near photoshop.

-Sebastian- wrote:
what would you do?

1) I'd zap the image on her poster page, as well, with a big ol' DMCA notice to Facebook.

2) I'd make sure she got a cease and desist from my lawyer with or without a parallel demand for payment for past and ongoing infringement.

That's what I would do. And promptly.

Studio36

-Sebastian- wrote:

They just used the biggest size on Flickr I guess. Probably looks awful, especially after that poor editing job.

Wouldn't that be determined by how large a file you uploaded?  I don't use Flicker, but I think you can upload files with whatever size you wish.. If this is the case, my advice in the future would be to watermark and upload files that are small with low resolution... I am sure others are more educated than me in regards to this.

Bottom Time Photo wrote:

She's been selling something you own.  I don't see why you shouldn't get the profits.  Unfortunately, that means hiring a lawyer.

And oh god, do not let that girl near photoshop.

Urks, I hate lawyers... would it be really worth it or does this fall under small claims?

The photoshop was done by a willful fan (who doesn't get any profits either and left his watermark *grr*).

Moon Pix Photography wrote:

Wouldn't that be determined by how large a file you uploaded?  I don't use Flicker, but I think you can upload files with whatever size you wish.. If this is the case, my advice in the future would be to watermark and upload files that are small with low resolution... I am sure others are more educated than me in regards to this.

The size I upload is 1067 x 1600px - not really print resolution. I don't want to limit showcasing my photos just because someone thinks it's ok to sell them.

Pop Pics wrote:
This kind of crap sucks. The sad thing is, if she would have contacted you with her intent to sell the image and offered you a piece of the action, and proper credit, I'm guessing this would be a non issue. Guessing you also probably have more great shots from the event. Good luck and I agree, great shot! You do own it.

Exactly - as I saw her fan-base I even thought about doing a real shoot with her and sharing the profits. The quality of images she is producing right now is not really great and the fans eat it all up.

-Sebastian- wrote:
Urks, I hate lawyers... would it be really worth it or does this fall under small claims?

The photoshop was done by a willful fan (who doesn't get any profits either and left his watermark *grr*).

You could probably do it in small claims. I doubt she's made more than $7,500 on it, which I believe is the small claims limit for california.

-Sebastian- wrote:

Exactly - as I saw her fan-base I even thought about doing a real shoot with her and sharing the profits. The quality of images she is producing right now is not really great and the fans eat it all up.

Perhaps you can offer to do a proper photoshoot with many different costumes, and then sold the photos as posters with both of you getting a cut.  If her fans get good photos, they'd probably sell better.

Bottom Time Photo wrote:
Well, what did your contract with her say?  Did it limit what she can and cannot do with the photo?

The OP was not shooting her specifically so there is likely no contract at all, of any sort, and likewise no release or anything else either; but there is also no license to her to make use of the image in any way. As I get it from the OP's remarks above, it was a snapshot made at an event which was open to the public with no particular restrictions on photography. Just because she stood still long enough for the picture to be taken gives her absolutely no rights in it, much less rights to commercialise it for sale to the public as a poster.

Studio36

-Sebastian- wrote:

ACPhotography wrote:
Is it registered, if not you should do that immediately...

Then go speak to an IP lawyer...

Hmm, that's $35 for a picture I did not want to sell anyway (I don't have a model release, obviously). If I do that I would have to probably go all the way and sue her to get my money's worth...

Not $35 per picture, $35 for a batch of pictures.  Put it in with a bunch of others that you've been meaning to register.  Registering is important because it affects how much damages you can collect.

ArtisticVisions wrote:
looks like she has some small copyright thing on the corner of the photo

That is the watermark the fan slapped on when he edited it.

-Sebastian- wrote:
The size I upload is 1067 x 1600px - not really print resolution. I don't want to limit showcasing my photos just because someone thinks it's ok to sell them.

I understand and you are correct - you shouldn't have to... however, 1067 x 1600 is large enough to print from (I think it would depend on DPI).. But Brett from Blue Cube has told me that I can print a very decent (and I have done it a number of times) 8x10 with those dimensions @ 150dpi (I could barely tell the difference printing an 8x10 at that size and one at full size and resolution)

It really isn't necessary to upload such large files to show work  online.  I think you could upload files a quarter that size and still have it look very, very good.

-Sebastian- wrote:
No contract. Snapshot I took at a convention, put it up on Flickr.

If you only put the image on Flickr, how did she manage to get her hands on the original file? That's what she would need to make a poster from the photo, not a down sized 600 pixel web based photo. Even 1600 pixels isn't big enough to print CMYK posters which is required to be 300dpi for that printing process.

Moon Pix Photography wrote:

I understand and you are correct - you shouldn't have to... however, 1067 x 1600 is large enough to print from (I think it would depend on DPI).. But Brett from Blue Cube has told me that I can print a very decent (and I have done it a number of times) 8x10 with those dimensions @ 150dpi (I could barely tell the difference printing an 8x10 at that size and one at full size and resolution)

It really isn't necessary to upload such large files to show work  online.  I think you could upload files a quarter that size and still have it look very, very good.

I want people to be able to see the details, like intact skin in my beauty pictures, that's why that size is necessary. She is selling 12x18 prints, so nearly double that size.

"


It is possible that you are both in the wrong.

Unless you are a news service you might not have permission to have posted it on flickr to begin with. in which case you could be in as much trouble for posting an image without permission as she is for copying it.

just because you took the picture doesn't automatically give you the right to do whatever you want with it.

no model release? no display of image!

federal law assigns copy right to whoever pushed the button.
state laws vary on what you can do with it.

In KY you can display a print of an image you took in your place of business with out a model release and that is about it.
you may want to find out what your state laws are for displaying images and how that relates to the internet before you stir this up further and end up in the soup yourself.

your best bet might be to let this one go.
and in the future ask people before taking their picture and if you think it might be something you want to use ask them to sign a release.
most people will be flattered, signing a release takes 30 seconds.
once in awhile someone will say NO you can not take my picture!

Justin aka Tiefling wrote:
And another thing ... add watermarks to your images. Yeah they suck and clutter crap up BUT they kind of make some people shy away from stealing things. I say some because I've heard of people, cropping the photo if the watermark is small enough and then play stupid about it later when they are caught.

Flickr is notorious for image thievery, not just by petty model cut-throats but by big corporations, car manufacturers and others you'd be surprised about. Really, Flickr is that bad. It's a great place for vampires to prey on ignorant people who have no idea about their rights OR want a "photo credit" for their work to brag to their friends about, while the company using the photo turns around and makes money off of it. 

And really you do own the copyright so long as you retain your original Raw or whatever it is you have. Adding exif copyrights and watermarks may help. Pursuing legal may be a waste of your money and time, but if you HAD a lawyer friend you could ask them to write a letter on their letterhead and send it, that would certainly be an option I'd pursue.

Someone demonstrated an app to me recently on their pc to show why watermarking is a waste of time... totally removed it in about 30 seconds processing time.  Reasonably chunky watermark bang across the middle of the image, image was of printable quality afterwards with just some minor blur.

Didnt exactly do my confidence any favours to say the least.

I utterly hate watermarking but sometimes you just have to do it with a special image even if it can be removed.


My own website blocks right clicking for the most part and print screen doesnt worry me too much.. but flickr well even my mum steals images off that.

-Sebastian- wrote:
Ok, so I kinda don't believe in lawyers and am even not a fan of the copyright per se. Yes, I'm like that.
I just don't like if someone makes money off it and basically screws me over.

Anyway, I sent her an email about the situation and that I really don't want to sue. She send me back a very nice email offering 30% of the profits. What do you think? Take it or leave it?

Take it.  And try to set up something for later that you two can also make money on!

Turn this thing around and put $$$ in your pocket.  We have enough starving artists!  Lets make some money!

Rebel Photo wrote:
Lawyer up and send a cease and desist threatening to sue under title 17. Make sure she gets a link to this : http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504
Send a DMCA to any and all sites

Actually §506 is much more to the point in a case like this.

Q to the OP: Was that image marked up in any way on your Flickr page [copyright notice or watermark or even your name]? If so there is a ready made means of claiming damages via §§ 1202;1203

Studio36

-Sebastian- wrote:
Ok, so I kinda don't believe in lawyers and am even not a fan of the copyright per se. Yes, I'm like that.
I just don't like if someone makes money off it and basically screws me over.

Anyway, I sent her an email about the situation and that I really don't want to sue. She send me back a very nice email offering 30% of the profits. What do you think? Take it or leave it?

It's a good start, but I think you could hold out for more.  After all, you're the one who captured and retouched the image.  She just stood still for 20 seconds.