|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Can i take legal action?
TO TAKE TO COURT OR NOT TAKE TO COURT Another photographer sold my images to a client without me knowing about it. I uploaded em to his computer and forgot to erase them. Can i take legal action? Is it worth it? No its not but i want to prove a point to this photographer though. I have proof i took the images also and it was shot on my camera. What should i do? Sep 10 12 10:00 pm Link Most copyright issues are Federal Law matters. Any attorney with experience in the Federal Courts system in the area of copyright would be happy to let you spend money to prove a point. After a consult he will simply say we can start your case with a $ 10,000 retainer and at trial bill you $ 150 ~300 per hour. Attorneys love clients who need to make a point. Yet a good one will tell you after a chat and some basic research (checking if actual damages exist and does the client have the ability to pay on a judgment ) that spending money in Federal Court to prove a point is most often a waste of good funds. Good luck ! Sep 10 12 10:15 pm Link Photos by Shawn Michael wrote: Do you play poker? Sep 10 12 10:38 pm Link You're a Texan.. don't you have a six gun ? Cause a lawyer is going to cost you a bundle. I think for copyright violation you get triple what he got paid. Don't know if that is enough to pay the lawyer. Sep 10 12 11:06 pm Link Vector One Photography wrote: I think the treble damages are only if you have had it copyrighted in advance. Sep 10 12 11:19 pm Link Actually quite simple and most likely no lawyer necessary. If it's tricky to go after the photographer, go after the client. Tell the client you took the images and that the client cannot use them without a licence. If they have already been published bill the client for the usage. The client can then go after the other photographer. Sep 10 12 11:32 pm Link Fred Greissing wrote: You are on the right track, Fred. The dynamic here may not be best approached as infringement but rather more productive by taking a shot across the bows on any number of other things - fraud; unjust enrichment; misrepresentation; trespass to chattels and more. Sep 11 12 01:24 am Link Fred Greissing wrote: +1 Sep 11 12 01:49 am Link You better have had a signed model release!!!!!!! Sep 11 12 02:30 am Link Just curious, what kind of images are they subject wise? I like Fred's idea. Sep 11 12 02:43 am Link Photos by Shawn Michael wrote: First, I'd find a lawyer, then... Sep 11 12 04:14 am Link Photos by Shawn Michael wrote: Try small claims court. Sep 11 12 04:15 am Link The answer is always, "Yes." The question is: is it a GOOD idea to do it? That, I can't tell you. Sep 11 12 04:20 am Link C Johnsen Photographer wrote: Why does Photographer A need a model release when Photographer B sells A's pictures without A's permission? Sep 11 12 04:40 am Link if you can prove that you took the images, I would do the following. 1) As said above talk to the client and apply the pressure on then. A simple threat of legal action will work wonders. Now for the fun part: 2) Write an email with the photographer's address at the top, but include every agency, production house, client, preacher ,candlestick maker in the address list. In the email explain that you find it sad that the photographer was so shit he had to steal your work. and best yet 3) get a bunch of mates and go and pay the thieving, low life scum a social call. Sep 11 12 04:50 am Link Photos by Shawn Michael wrote: . . . really??? . . . on the bright side, someone liked your work. Sep 11 12 05:03 am Link IF you want to prove a point as you say, do it. Sep 11 12 05:13 am Link I have advised on a similar situation: send a letter certified mail, return receipt requested to THE GENERAL COUNSEL or top lawyer of the client telling them that those are your images and how much you want for their usage. Give them proof that they are yours that they can verify on efix data, which they should have. You must have a model release, of course. Do not even mention the person who stole your stuff. If you are successful, they will take care of him. This works. It's going directly to their lawyers that does the trick. Sep 11 12 12:59 pm Link Creative Image wrote: +1 Sep 11 12 01:06 pm Link some lawyers will send the threatening letter for low/no cost can eek out the settlement quickly also summary judgements aren't really that expensive, how much is your time worth? you may be able to do some research and form your argument and everything yourself although, I should admit I've never actually done Federal Court before. only 1% of cases make it that far after all  Sep 11 12 01:10 pm Link Photos by Shawn Michael wrote: Get a lawyer and stop asking these people for guidance. Sep 11 12 01:16 pm Link the answer is yes you can - but wouldn't you rather just get a life? Sep 11 12 01:19 pm Link You can roll the dice in small claims court......but I don't know if it would be worth anything else (unless they are naked photos of Marilyn Monroe or Elvis) Sep 11 12 01:25 pm Link C Johnsen Photographer wrote: Why would that make a difference ?? Sep 11 12 01:33 pm Link Illuminate wrote: +1000 Sep 11 12 05:06 pm Link C Johnsen Photographer wrote: LOL WUT? Sep 11 12 07:36 pm Link Just out of curiosity, did you register these images before you gave them to the other photographer? If you did not, your options may be greatly reduced. Sep 11 12 07:46 pm Link I like the idea of billing the client and letting him worry about the other photographer (and yes, be prepared to prove to him that you are the actual photographer). When I license an image to a client there is almost always a clause in their agreement that says I am warranting that I am the rightful owner of the images they are licensing from me, and I agree to indemnify them if I'm not. Whether its in their contract with the other photographer or not doesn't matter. They are using YOUR image without YOUR license, period. They will pay up because they know they're in the wrong. As for the model release, its not really necessary (assuming there is a model in the shot) for this aspect of the issue. If there is a model, and no release, you can give the model a heads-up and let her go after the client for using her likeness without a model release. Or she can sign a release to you, with payment to her contingent on your collecting from the client. That will give you extra leverage. And next time (if you didn't) register your images with the copyright office for even greater benefits. Sep 11 12 09:44 pm Link Photos by Shawn Michael wrote: How much do you think you should get for this transgression? Think about the Federal Court you'll be in where there are cases(copyright included) where the ante is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars! You'll be small potatoes and more than likely the judge in pre-trial will say "...why don't you two go out in the hall and try to settle this" especially if things are clear cut(all your paperwork, copyright and ducks in a row). It may never get to court as mine didn't that was for close to $20,000+ . Sep 11 12 09:53 pm Link Photos by Shawn Michael wrote: seriously? Sep 11 12 10:02 pm Link Fred Greissing wrote: My thoughts exactly !!! Sep 11 12 10:06 pm Link Fred is on the right track. I would first file a DMCA take down order if it is something published on a website. If there is no model release then they can't publish anyway. I agree I wold go after the client using the photos. It is their responsibilty to show they have rights to use. If those rights don't exist they are liable. It's like being caught with stolen property. If you get caught selling stolen property then you are responsible unless you rat on the person who actually stole the property. Even then you are still both in trouble if you knew it was stolen property. In your case the client seems to be the one with the money to compensate you for your losses. This will also kill off the other photographers potential business with this client. Sep 11 12 10:19 pm Link Wow, there is a certain special kind of stupid that permeates these threads. The right answer is what creative image said. You want a companies attention, always send this kind of thing to the General Counsel. Guess what their job is.... Now, THINK. How much would you wanna bet the other photographer had to sign something? How much you wanna bet in that document there is a clause about indemnifying the company form legal action. How much you wanna bet that they will do a better job of educating this guy on the subject than you will. See, these guys are likely on staff or on retainer already... That said they might pay you they might not, but you will have better odds going at them 1st and let THEM sue the thief. You can block them from using the images they paid for, might take a court trip, but its possible. They MIGHT pay you knowing that they can get it back, plus more, from the idiot theif. IF he has anything worth going after. If he works at Wal Mart 2 days a week and lives in a 1 room hovel..meh..might not fit into the cost/benefit model. It might end up being cheaper to pay you and not even bother the other guy. Who knows. The point is, do what Creative image said. Sep 12 12 12:01 am Link Your actions will have both legal and business repercussions. You want to take both into account. Do you believe the other photographer knowingly sold images that were yours, or do you believe it was an honest mistake? (The images were on his computer, and he mistook the images for his). What do you want? Do you want money? If this is a big client, perhaps you just insist they give you credit. They may decide to stop using the other photographer, and start using you directly. What were the circumstances of the images getting on the other photographer's computer? Can they be construed as you giving the photographer rights to these images? You want to speak to an attorney. The sooner the better. You need to discuss with the attorney whether or not you need to immediately register the copyright on the images. Who do you want to go after? The other photographer or the client? Which of them has the ability to make you happy? Whoever you go after will likely get very annoyed. You can ask the other photographer to pay you for the images. You get money, but no photo credits. You can tell the client that there usage license is not valid. This will annoy the client. You can offer to sell the client a valid usage license. This will also annoy the client. You can go after the photographer and compel him to retract the usage license. You have to be careful ho you word your demands. Improper wording might be construed as blackmail (i.e. pay me $5,000 or I will tell the police about your crime). Most importantly, don't rely on anything I say (I am not an attorney) nor on any advice you receive from the web. Consult an attorney for reliable legal advice. Sep 12 12 04:06 am Link Fotographic Aspirations wrote: +1 Sep 12 12 07:18 am Link ME_ wrote: Because the original photographer, without a model release, does not necessarily have the right to use the images commercially either. Sep 12 12 07:34 am Link ME_ wrote: George Ruge wrote: It's not whether money changes hands, it's how the client will be using the images. If the images will be used in a manner that doesn't require a release (art for the wall in corporate headquarters, perhaps editorial use in the annual report), then the lack of a release isn't an issue. Sep 12 12 08:16 am Link Photos by Shawn Michael wrote: Any butt munching a-hole can sue any other butt munching a-hole for pretty much any reason whatsoever. Winning, however, is not guaranteed. Photos by Shawn Michael wrote: Do a better job protecting your photographs. Sep 12 12 08:38 am Link ME_ wrote: George Ruge wrote: The photographer doesn't need a model release. The publisher who is using them commercially does. In the case of this thead, the photographer himself doesn't need one since he is not the publishing entity. As the copyright holder, he can sell his pictures or give them for free to anyone, for any purpose, commercial or otherwise. Sep 12 12 01:21 pm Link Just curious... why did you upload them to his computer? Sep 12 12 01:25 pm Link |
