Forums > General Industry > ...and even when the model does sign the paperwork

Photographer

MC Seoul Photography

Posts: 453

Seoul, Seoul, Korea (South)

You've been nice, they haven't responded, file a DMCA take down notice.

Start here, I assume it's on facebook
https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/208282075858952

Mar 23 13 02:09 am Link

Photographer

Matt Duke

Posts: 121

Cypress, California, US

You should edit his file with maybe more birds and then put your watermark back on. lol

Mar 23 13 02:20 am Link

Photographer

Will Snizek Photography

Posts: 1387

Beckley, West Virginia, US

I'm not sure how derivative copyright in Europe works, but here in the United States, it's actually difficult for the original copyright holder to win a case against someone who created a derivative work from it as long as the derivative work possesses originality of its own. 

With that said, we don't have the best legal system here and the better lawyer almost always wins whether they are right or not.  While I understand your frustration with someone butchering your work and giving you no credit, you can at least take it as a compliment too..your work is good enough to steal.

Mar 23 13 02:39 am Link

Artist/Painter

MainePaintah

Posts: 1782

Saco, Maine, US

I applaud you for going after him!

In my opinion he is a lazy artist who just steals other people photos and them uses them any way he likes!

Another artist too lazy to take his own photos was Shepard Fairey who stole that photographers photo of President Obama and turned it into a poster. He made some money but got sued by the photographer and LOST!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Oba … %22_poster

Some may say this is just "fan art", but it is still STEALING! Tell him to take his own damn photo, then he can do what he wants.

Mar 23 13 03:26 am Link

Photographer

TomFRohwer

Posts: 696

Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Will Snizek wrote:
I'm not sure how derivative copyright in Europe works, but here in the United States, it's actually difficult for the original copyright holder to win a case against someone who created a derivative work from it as long as the derivative work possesses originality of its own.

Under German copyright law a derivative work is only legal if the new derivative work is distinctly dominated by the own creative work of its creator. Say... 80 percent new creativity and 20 percent used material. Any editing of copyrighted works is allowed with the creator's consent only.

In the example shown German courts would speak of illegal editing.

Mar 23 13 06:37 am Link

Photographer

RKD Photographic

Posts: 3265

Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

I filed a takedown notice with FB - after taking screen-grabs.

He's still in touch - got another email this morning - apparently a family member has just been involved in a traffic accident, so he's going to 'get back to me' on Monday...

Mar 23 13 08:09 am Link

Artist/Painter

sdgillis

Posts: 2444

Portland, Oregon, US

MainePaintah wrote:
Another artist too lazy to take his own photos was Shepard Fairey who stole that photographers photo of President Obama and turned it into a poster. He made some money but got sued by the photographer and LOST!

no.  He got sued by the AP and settled after getting caught lying in court about the image he used. He was awarded minor fines as a consequence.

Mar 23 13 09:30 am Link

Model

Caitin Bre

Posts: 2248

Naperville, Illinois, US

RKD Photographic wrote:
...there's still no guarantee that something won't go wrong...

The image on the right appears to be fan-art created by one of her FB followers - but she's still posted it up on her Fan-Page...

For now I've taken some screen-grabs and asked her very politely to remove it, reminding her of the clause in the Usage Agreement that prohibits this sort of thing (removal of watermark, creation of derivative works etc etc).

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8231/8576200249_34dcef9572_c.jpg

Wow that is very wrong! They didn't get permission? Looking at the signature on the art, and they removed yours. Find the artist and remind them of copyrights and permissions.

Mar 23 13 09:36 am Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 8868

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Chicchowmein wrote:

I don't like the eyes in the "re-edited version" but regardless altering your work without permission and slapping his own watermark on it. Not cool.

Fix the eyes, add an extra raven, flapping around, remove his watermark and replace with your own.
Done.
And 'turn around' etc.

Mar 23 13 07:31 pm Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 8868

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

RKD Photographic wrote:

That's right Andy - it is - and if those images aren't gone by tonight I'm gonna knee-cap the Be-yatch.

Or it could be something totally trivial, but noteworthy in light of the many, many discussions we have on MM regarding watermarking, copyright and Model Release/Usage Agreement paperwork.
Had my watermarks not been appended to the other images in her gallery, I would never have known: one of my other images was noticed by a former colleague who linked me to her new page - which I had no previous knowledge of - and scrolling down, I found this.

See, there I was thinking this might be of some interest to a few of us here and the same old faces are just out to score points as bloody usual...

Some of us are reasonable and rational. Cannot speak about the rest.

Mar 23 13 07:34 pm Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 8868

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Silver Mirage wrote:
or possibly ask for a credit (something like "From a photograph by .....).

Been there and do that with a number of artist friends. In fact, with a couple I will send them stuff I think they might enjoy. I only get upset when their final art is so good, that it makes my original look like crap.  ;>)

Mar 23 13 07:41 pm Link

Photographer

L2Photography net

Posts: 2539

University City, Missouri, US

my photo she gave to a friend because he needed one for his marketing co. I had it pulled from face book I did the blue one.
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/100206/10/4b6dbafe8c008.jpg
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/100529/14/4c01808a1f5b1.jpg

Mar 23 13 07:44 pm Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 8868

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

RKD Photographic wrote:

Not just any 'fan', but Rory Fiorito - a well known (apparently) artist responsible for a lot of album art: Uriah Heep; Blue Oyster Cult; Diamondhead; Dokken...

https://www.facebook.com/rory.fiorito

So everybody go to his site, and he does have some nice stuff, take something, make a couple of changes and post it as your own. How long do you think it will take him to get the message?

Mar 23 13 07:44 pm Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 8868

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Matt Duke wrote:
You should edit his file with maybe more birds and then put your watermark back on. lol

Hey that's my idea.
DCMA notice.

Actually according to the time stamp you beat me to it.

So if you want, I'll delete my comment.

Mar 23 13 07:51 pm Link

Photographer

Bravo Magic Images

Posts: 765

Temple City, California, US

All you had to do is frame and crop and resise

Mar 23 13 07:52 pm Link

Photographer

Revenge Photography

Posts: 1830

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

RKD Photographic wrote:
Not just any 'fan', but Rory Fiorito - a well known (apparently) artist responsible for a lot of album art: Uriah Heep; Blue Oyster Cult; Diamondhead; Dokken...

https://www.facebook.com/rory.fiorito

I found it quite ironic that on at least one of the images on his page under his watermark and copyright he put the words "Do not use in any manner!"

Clearly he is a willful and hypocritical infringer.

Mar 23 13 08:22 pm Link

Model

Sierra McKenzie

Posts: 711

Seattle, Washington, US

honestly I think you're overreacting.

do you have the right to have it taken down entirely? yes.

but should you? I don't think so.

I would simply ask that your original photo is credited and linked, and that the new work is called what it is: fanart.

in the modern internet era this sort of thing is kind of new territory. but I think that as long as he has no commercial gain and your original photo is credited and linked, you should let it be. it may even attract more people to the original photo.

when I get fanart I typically send it directly to the photographer and post it with the link to the original piece of work. and usually they are excited about it. I think that because this is digital art the line is a little weirder, but I think you should still back off your stance a bit.

(BUT I may also ask them to take off their "signature". haha.)

Mar 23 13 10:17 pm Link

Photographer

David Parsons

Posts: 972

Quincy, Massachusetts, US

sdgillis wrote:
Fan art is one of those mysterious things that tugs at the strings of copyright laws and usage.  Fan art (at least in the US) is not viewed as infringement in many situations.  I would say this example is not enough of a derivative to be re-authored.  The artist did a bad thing in not asking permission, and a good reminder that artists should ask for license to use other peoples photos.

Of course it is viewed as infringement.  The smart artists just know that fans are far better to have on your side than fighting every single case of unauthorized usage.

The OP is well within his rights to pursue the takedown.  Whether that is a smart thing to do is a separate question.

Mar 23 13 10:57 pm Link

Photographer

DarrylPascoePhotography

Posts: 477

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Sierra McKenzie wrote:
honestly I think you're overreacting.

do you have the right to have it taken down entirely? yes.

but should you? I don't think so.

I would simply ask that your original photo is credited and linked, and that the new work is called what it is: fanart.

in the modern internet era this sort of thing is kind of new territory. but I think that as long as he has no commercial gain and your original photo is credited and linked, you should let it be. it may even attract more people to the original photo.

when I get fanart I typically send it directly to the photographer and post it with the link to the original piece of work. and usually they are excited about it. I think that because this is digital art the line is a little weirder, but I think you should still back off your stance a bit.

(BUT I may also ask them to take off their "signature". haha.)

While I may under some circumstances agree it not a good idea to fight it that hard to have it taken down, I think it was unreasonable for someone to take the image without permission in the first place and probably what I feel is the worst thing is take out the signature that was on the original, and put their own and not credit the original photographer. Not cool and I can totally understand the op being upset enough to do what he has done to this point. I would be too.

Had they handled it differently may have been a much different situation.

Mar 23 13 11:03 pm Link

Photographer

faltered

Posts: 285

Los Angeles, California, US

Clearly it's infringement and it's straight up theft. Is it worth spending money to go through the legal process? no, not unless it's an ad-agency or company using it for advertising that has the ability to pay or has corporate insurance and then maybe their errors and omissions coverage would pay out. The fact is this happens all the time and it's going to continue to happen.

What I would be most pissed off about in this case is the model posting it on her FB page. I don't care how nice she may be, she signed an agreement and even the most green models have enough intelligence to know something isn't right. Where did she get the photo? Probably from the person who altered it or from a site where it was posted and he was photo credited (not to mention he water marked it).

People are always going to steal your work, but when the model, who signed a release, uses a stolen image that's no bueno.

Mar 23 13 11:14 pm Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 8868

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/130323/23/514e9a384c9ca.jpg

Not sure why he has a lot of fans.
I am about to post this on my fanpage.
Please share so that I can make a poster of it, and sell a bunch.

(major sarcasm alert)

Mar 23 13 11:22 pm Link

Photographer

RKD Photographic

Posts: 3265

Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

*update* He's being very, very apologetic and is paying my invoice in $100 monthly instalments as it was quite a lot. First payment cleared this morning by the look of it.

Mar 24 13 11:48 pm Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 28000

Dearborn, Michigan, US

RKD Photographic wrote:
*update* He's being very, very apologetic and is paying my invoice in $100 monthly instalments as it was quite a lot. First payment cleared this morning by the look of it.

Congratulations!

Mar 25 13 02:35 am Link

Photographer

Sleepy Weasel

Posts: 4643

Castle Rock, Colorado, US

Nice update - keep us posted.

Mar 25 13 07:21 am Link

Model

V for Victory Modeling

Posts: 436

Roseville, California, US

RKD Photographic wrote:
...there's still no guarantee that something won't go wrong...

The image on the right appears to be fan-art created by one of her FB followers - but she's still posted it up on her Fan-Page...

For now I've taken some screen-grabs and asked her very politely to remove it, reminding her of the clause in the Usage Agreement that prohibits this sort of thing (removal of watermark, creation of derivative works etc etc).

Oh I remember this llama, this was the one who also had braces!

Mar 25 13 09:51 am Link

Photographer

Dan K Photography

Posts: 5466

STATEN ISLAND, New York, US

RKD Photographic wrote:
*update* He's being very, very apologetic and is paying my invoice in $100 monthly instalments as it was quite a lot. First payment cleared this morning by the look of it.

Wow.

Mar 25 13 09:58 am Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 8868

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Dan K Photography wrote:

Wow.

Mar 25 13 11:59 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

studio36uk

Posts: 21903

Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna

As the saying goes:

When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

Studio36

Mar 25 13 01:40 pm Link

Photographer

Darren Brade

Posts: 2833

London, England, United Kingdom

Sierra McKenzie wrote:
honestly I think you're overreacting.

do you have the right to have it taken down entirely? yes.

but should you? I don't think so.

I would simply ask that your original photo is credited and linked, and that the new work is called what it is: fanart.

in the modern internet era this sort of thing is kind of new territory. but I think that as long as he has no commercial gain and your original photo is credited and linked, you should let it be. it may even attract more people to the original photo.

when I get fanart I typically send it directly to the photographer and post it with the link to the original piece of work. and usually they are excited about it. I think that because this is digital art the line is a little weirder, but I think you should still back off your stance a bit.

(BUT I may also ask them to take off their "signature". haha.)

Yes i agree, sometimes there is a benefit in fan art, but other times there isnt. Ive had something very similar happen to me and it can be very frustrating to see someone claim your work is theirs.

In reality, most of this would have been moot if the theives  just asked permission in the first place.

Mar 25 13 03:53 pm Link

Photographer

rp_photo

Posts: 42495

Houston, Texas, US

RKD Photographic wrote:
...there's still no guarantee that something won't go wrong...

I would be honored to have a model make such a creation from one of our images, although I agree that the logo change was out of line.

Mar 25 13 04:57 pm Link

Photographer

RKD Photographic

Posts: 3265

Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

rp_photo wrote:

I would be honored to have a model make such a creation from one of our images, although I agree that the logo change was out of line.

Except this wasn't the model - it was a professional graphic designer/artist, who makes a living designing Album covers and other commercial artworks...

Mar 26 13 12:26 am Link

Photographer

Drew Smith Photography

Posts: 5210

Nottingham, England, United Kingdom

Kudos and congrats and all that crap. smile

I'd have been ape shit furious. It would have been his little signature that would have royally pissed me off.

Mar 26 13 12:50 am Link

Model

V Laroche

Posts: 2746

New Orleans, Louisiana, US

No, the model release does not grant you control over the actions of every person on the entire internet, if that's what you were thinking. Haha

Mar 26 13 01:46 pm Link

Model

V Laroche

Posts: 2746

New Orleans, Louisiana, US

ontherocks wrote:
i like both versions. for my part i don't stress about it unless there's money involved. i've had model's friends add cereal vomit to my images on facebook.

Cereal vomit????

Mar 26 13 01:48 pm Link

Photographer

Cherrystone

Posts: 36718

Columbus, Ohio, US

V Laroche wrote:

Cereal vomit????

Consider the source....

Mar 26 13 01:50 pm Link

Photographer

Swank Photography

Posts: 19015

Key West, Florida, US

rbphotos wrote:
I like the one on the right side.

Me too.

Mar 26 13 01:58 pm Link

Model

V Laroche

Posts: 2746

New Orleans, Louisiana, US

Cherrystone wrote:

Consider the source....

what????

Mar 26 13 02:18 pm Link

Photographer

Nico Simon Princely

Posts: 1887

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Sorry to say but today we live in a society that thinks, information, knowledge, art, music, source code, etc should all be free and that anyone should be able to do with it what they want. That will be fine, when rent, cars, homes, and camera equipment, food are also free! Until then it's not cool.

We live in a a time the majority of new music, and a good part of new art are all derivatives, and remixes of other people work.

People make music that can't read music or play an instrument, they use sounds made my other people. The ruin great songs and chop them up. And stick their name on it.

Much like this person did to the OP image. They added some fog and texture, and a crow and then slapped their name on it. Which is very insulting to the OP work.

The problem beyond the clear and blatant copyright violation that would offend me most is that the person that did this... Did not do the work he is taking credit for and take credit for what the OP did. And yes that's very insulting.

And people complain about the big watermarks across the middle of the images. This is why you need them. Apparently having one on the top or bottom is not enough.

Mar 26 13 02:21 pm Link

Photographer

Nico Simon Princely

Posts: 1887

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

RKD Photographic wrote:
*update* He's being very, very apologetic and is paying my invoice in $100 monthly instalments as it was quite a lot. First payment cleared this morning by the look of it.

Good for you.  I have gone after people 3 times for violation of my copyright. Two were honest and paid up and we settled. The 3rd a dirtbag that lied and claimed it was never up and ran away and hid.

Mar 26 13 02:30 pm Link

Photographer

RKD Photographic

Posts: 3265

Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

V Laroche wrote:
No, the model release does not grant you control over the actions of every person on the entire internet, if that's what you were thinking. Haha

No, but the signed 'Usage Agreement' and various international agreements on intellectual copyright which have been signed into law in many countries do... haha

As evidenced by him agreeing to pay for unauthorised usage. smile

Mar 27 13 01:33 am Link