|
Forums >
General Industry >
...and even when the model does sign the paperwork
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 You should edit his file with maybe more birds and then put your watermark back on. lol Mar 23 13 02:20 am Link 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 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 Will Snizek wrote: 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. Mar 23 13 06:37 am Link 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 MainePaintah wrote: 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 RKD Photographic wrote: 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 Chicchowmein wrote: Fix the eyes, add an extra raven, flapping around, remove his watermark and replace with your own. Mar 23 13 07:31 pm Link RKD Photographic wrote: Some of us are reasonable and rational. Cannot speak about the rest. Mar 23 13 07:34 pm Link Silver Mirage wrote: 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 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.   Mar 23 13 07:44 pm Link RKD Photographic wrote: 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 Matt Duke wrote: Hey that's my idea. Mar 23 13 07:51 pm Link All you had to do is frame and crop and resise Mar 23 13 07:52 pm Link RKD Photographic wrote: 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!" Mar 23 13 08:22 pm Link 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 sdgillis wrote: 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. Mar 23 13 10:57 pm Link Sierra McKenzie wrote: 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. Mar 23 13 11:03 pm Link 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  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 *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 RKD Photographic wrote: Congratulations! Mar 25 13 02:35 am Link Nice update - keep us posted. Mar 25 13 07:21 am Link RKD Photographic wrote: Oh I remember this llama, this was the one who also had braces! Mar 25 13 09:51 am Link RKD Photographic wrote: Wow. Mar 25 13 09:58 am Link Dan K Photography wrote: Mar 25 13 11:59 am Link 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 Sierra McKenzie wrote: 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. Mar 25 13 03:53 pm Link RKD Photographic 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. Mar 25 13 04:57 pm Link rp_photo wrote: 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 Kudos and congrats and all that crap.  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 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 ontherocks wrote: Cereal vomit???? Mar 26 13 01:48 pm Link V Laroche wrote: Consider the source.... Mar 26 13 01:50 pm Link rbphotos wrote: Me too. Mar 26 13 01:58 pm Link Cherrystone wrote: what???? Mar 26 13 02:18 pm Link 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 RKD Photographic wrote: 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 V Laroche wrote: No, but the signed 'Usage Agreement' and various international agreements on intellectual copyright which have been signed into law in many countries do... haha Mar 27 13 01:33 am Link |
