Murvelous wrote:
those images look a lot like the DC, but they are not official, which renders the 'DC own it' argument redundant

if your lawyer cant get you money out of this, get a new lawyer

This is a thread from last summer. It got solved already.  The only reason we are posting now is that the website stupidly put the images back sometime in the fall.
OP is in no need of a better lawyer

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
This is a thread from last summer. It got solved already.  The only reason we are posting now is that the website stupidly put the images back sometime in the fall.
OP is in no need of a better lawyer

A few more posts and they'll do what they did previously...remove it (at least temporarily).

I got a kick out of their initial response though back in June. They seem to be more than a bit confused between Trademark Infringement and Copyright Infringement.

Shot By Adam wrote:

The whois says that the DNS for their hosting company is their own domain name, which tells me that they are on their own server so there is no hosting company to notify (already thought of this).

Also, the image was probably stolen off of my blog site where I don't have the bar on the bottom. Still though, theft is theft.

The latest email I got from them is just as frustrating as the others. They are claiming now that because I do not have a license from DC I am legally unable to license the image so this makes them exempt from the DMCA notice. It's insane, and and why they are being so difficult is beyond me. So the next step is my attorney on Monday.

For future reference, do not rely just on WHOIS info to find a host. IP addresses are assigned to hosts.

ARIN wrote:
NetRange    208.100.0.0 - 208.100.63.255
CIDR    208.100.0.0/18
Name    STEADFAST-2
Handle    NET-208-100-0-0-1
Parent    NET208 (NET-208-0-0-0-0)
Net Type    Direct Allocation
Origin AS    AS32748
Organization    Steadfast Networks (NOZON)
Registration Date    2006-02-17
Last Updated    2012-03-12
Comments    Please submit all reports of abuse to
[email protected]. Reports sent to
other addresses will not be processed.
RESTful Link    http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-208-100-0-0-1

As you can see, their host is Steadfast Networks, and the contact information is readily available.

Hope this helps on future endeavors!

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

A few more posts and they'll do what they did previously...remove it (at least temporarily).

I got a kick out of their initial response though back in June. They seem to be more than a bit confused between Trademark Infringement and Copyright Infringement.

I think you are confused, not them.  Their actions clearly demonstrate they know what the fuck they are doing and are doing whatever it takes to get away with it it while they can.  I too got a kick out of their response but I did not for one moment think they actually believed their bullshit.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

I think you are confused, not them.  Their actions clearly demonstrate they know what the fuck they are doing and are doing whatever it takes to get away with it it while they can.  I too got a kick out of their response but I did not for one moment think they actually believed their bullshit.

On a tangent subject, how do you prove that an image is really yours, you did not steal from somebody else?

Three Cats Photography wrote:
On a tangent subject, how do you prove that an image is really yours, you did not steal from somebody else?

Raw file / Negative or chrome / copyright registration

UltimateAppeal wrote:

Shot By Adam wrote:
The whois says that the DNS for their hosting company is their own domain name, which tells me that they are on their own server so there is no hosting company to notify (already thought of this).

Also, the image was probably stolen off of my blog site where I don't have the bar on the bottom. Still though, theft is theft.

The latest email I got from them is just as frustrating as the others. They are claiming now that because I do not have a license from DC I am legally unable to license the image so this makes them exempt from the DMCA notice. It's insane, and and why they are being so difficult is beyond me. So the next step is my attorney on Monday.

For future reference, do not rely just on WHOIS info to find a host. IP addresses are assigned to hosts.


As you can see, their host is Steadfast Networks, and the contact information is readily available.

Hope this helps on future endeavors!

Useful to know. Out of curiosity, where did you go to track this down? How did you ascertain their IP address and make the connection to their host?

UltimateAppeal wrote:

Raw file / Negative or chrome / copyright registration

even a jpg from before the final edit will do it.  or before it was resized for the web.  or before the freckles were edited out.

Shot By Adam wrote:
Over the last seven months, my attorneys have gotten involved and a settlement is being reached. I am unable to comment at this time but I will in the future.

are you able to comment on the fact that the image is back?

Shot By Adam wrote:

Useful to know. Out of curiosity, where did you go to track this down? How did you ascertain their IP address and make the connection to their host?

First I opened a terminal window on my mac (windows you can use the run command) and did a traceroute to the site (windows command used to be tracert - not sure if that has changed). That gives me the site IP address. Then I go to ARIN's whois, the lookup box is in the upper right corner of their website, entered the IP address and that will give you all the info on who the IP address is assigned to.

Shot By Adam wrote:

Useful to know. Out of curiosity, where did you go to track this down? How did you ascertain their IP address and make the connection to their host?

ping or traceroute or whatever sankakucomplex.com
that gives you an IP address (in this case 208.100.10.26)
ARIN is the reverse of whois.  give them an address they will tell you who has the block its part of.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

even a jpg from before the final edit will do it.  or before it was resized for the web.  or before the freckles were edited out.

Yes as long as you can show that it is the original before alterations. On my Nikon's I now always have the comment field set to also record the copyright information. This can also be done in ACR when you are first processing the images. One note, the information in EXIF can be changed.

UltimateAppeal wrote:

Yes as long as you can show that it is the original before alterations. On my Nikon's I now always have the comment field set to also record the copyright information. This can also be done in ACR when you are first processing the images. One note, the information in EXIF can be changed.

there is no absolute but anything you do to edit the image before publishing makes proof easier. EXIF can be changed, but it's hard to explain why their version doesnt have the tree in the foreground.  for stuff stolen from the web all you need is a full sized jpg.  they cant put back the data lost.

Shot By Adam wrote:

The costumes they are wearing are licensed and sold everywhere.

Using officially licensed costumes does not give you blanket permission to use those costumes in a commercial endeavor. Now that you have pressed your rights and have received paid compensation for the images, you've made the pictures very much commercial. It was the whole point of using the lawyers, right?

In fact, you seem happy to make a cottage industry out of infringement...

Frankly - and I know I'm going to sound like a dick for saying this - it would be funny as hell if DC sued you in return.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

there is no absolute but anything you do to edit the image before publishing makes proof easier. EXIF can be changed, but it's hard to explain why their version doesnt have the tree in the foreground.  for stuff stolen from the web all you need is a full sized jpg.  they cant put back the data lost.

Most of the time in my case, its my damned finger or the camera strap in the foreground.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

are you able to comment on the fact that the image is back?

Unfortunately, no, I probably shouldn't at this time.

Sophistocles wrote:

$600, and your attorney charged you how much? My time is worth $350/hour billable. My attorney charges $300/hour. Just spending an hour on the issue would be a loss of $50 to me on a $600 settlement.

You?

wait you say your worth 350 an hour but your profile says "Been thinking about shooting with me? I only do trade, which means I'm not going to quote you my rates. Shoots with me are free. I do this as a professional hobby, not for a living"

and what is a professional hobby?

William Kious wrote:

Using officially licensed costumes does not give you blanket permission to use those costumes in a commercial endeavor. Now that you have pressed your rights and have received paid compensation for the images, you've made the pictures very much commercial. It was the whole point of using the lawyers, right?

In fact, you seem happy to make a cottage industry out of infringement...

Frankly - and I know I'm going to sound like a dick for saying this - it would be funny as hell if DC sued you in return.

I think you misunderstand intellectual property.  To put it simply, if people could not pose for the camera in the cute outfits, nobody would buy them.  Even more to the point, they don't come with a shrinkwrap limitation of rights.  In general, the reverse is often true (but not always). companies PAY for product placement in films and occasionally stills.  But there is zero chance of DC comics (or their rights enforcement) suing the OP. There is zero chance of them suing the owners of the costumes. it's simply not infringement.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

ping or traceroute or whatever sankakucomplex.com
that gives you an IP address (in this case 208.100.10.26)
ARIN is the reverse of whois.  give them an address they will tell you who has the block its part of.

Interesting. I just tried this with my own website and didn't get an accurate result though. I went to traceroute.com and got the IP address to my site.

Then I went to arin.com and put in that IP address in the search bar and got a result that was not my hosting company nor was it a company I ever heard of. Did I do something wrong?

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

I think you misunderstand intellectual property.  To put it simply, if people could not pose for the camera in the cute outfits, nobody would buy them.  Even more to the point, they don't come with a shrinkwrap limitation of rights.  In general, the reverse is often true (but not always). companies PAY for product placement in films and occasionally stills.  But there is zero chance of DC comics (or their rights enforcement) suing the OP. There is zero chance of them suing the owners of the costumes. it's simply not infringement.

This is actually 100% accurate. I've run this issue past two different copyright attorneys and both of them told me this exact same thing. Even still though, going after someone for damages for stealing my property does not mean that I am doing this as a commercial endeavor and, hence, still would not violate any of DCs copyrights on the matter. But since that's an irrelevant point anyway, it really doesn't matter.

Shot By Adam wrote:
Interesting. I just tried this with my own website and didn't get an accurate result though. I went to traceroute.com and got the IP address to my site.

Then I went to arin.com and put in that IP address in the search bar and got a result that was not my hosting company nor was it a company I ever heard of. Did I do something wrong?

It would be the company providing your hosting company with their IP addresses. Your hosting company buys bandwidth thru the provider, and in turn they supply the IP addresses. So technically, your hosting company is a middleman.

Softlayer Technologies provides Hostgator their bandwidth. SO if say you had stolen images on your site, and I sent a DMCA Takedown Notice to Softlayer, they in turn would notify Hostgator to remove the images. If Hostgator did not comply, they could shut them down.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

I think you misunderstand intellectual property.  To put it simply, if people could not pose for the camera in the cute outfits, nobody would buy them.  Even more to the point, they don't come with a shrinkwrap limitation of rights.  In general, the reverse is often true (but not always). companies PAY for product placement in films and occasionally stills.  But there is zero chance of DC comics (or their rights enforcement) suing the OP. There is zero chance of them suing the owners of the costumes. it's simply not infringement.

I think you might misunderstand a few things...

People buy the costumes to go to parties. If the intent was for the costume to be used in a commercial form, there would be a bit more paperwork involved than handing over a credit card. The point I'm trying to make is that, in pursuing legal action, he has taken this beyond the realm of being a "hobbyist" enjoying cosplay.

They won't sue him because he's small potatoes. I just think it would be funny if they did (and they would have grounds.) A company like DC may pay "big bucks" for product placement, but I doubt that placement would involve the OP's work. Also, with product placement, there are LISTS of rules... how the product is used, where it's placed, etc. The owner of the product maintains control.

If you think you're 100% right, I want you to try a little test. Take the mascot for Notre Dame. Use him in your pictures. Sell them. Sue others for using the pictures. Then, I'll make a telephone call and we'll see what happens.

Shot By Adam wrote:

Interesting. I just tried this with my own website and didn't get an accurate result though. I went to traceroute.com and got the IP address to my site.

Then I went to arin.com and put in that IP address in the search bar and got a result that was not my hosting company nor was it a company I ever heard of. Did I do something wrong?

sorry neither of us was clear. you had to enter the command "tracert sankakucomplex.com' or "ping sankakucomplex.com" from a command window.

William Kious wrote:

I think you might misunderstand a few things...

People buy the costumes to go to parties. If the intent was for the costume to be used in a commercial form, there would be a bit more paperwork involved than handing over a credit card. The point I'm trying to make is that, in pursuing legal action, he has taken this beyond the realm of being a "hobbyist" enjoying cosplay.

They won't sue him because he's small potatoes. I just think it would be funny if they did (and they would have grounds.) A company like DC may pay "big bucks" for product placement, but I doubt that placement would involve the OP's work. Also, with product placement, there are LISTS of rules... how the product is used, where it's placed, etc. The owner of the product maintains control.

If you think you're 100% right, I want you to try a little test. Take the mascot for Notre Dame. Use him in your pictures. Sell them. Sue others for using the pictures. Then, I'll make a telephone call and we'll see what happens.

look I don't have time to play games with someone who didnt go to law school let alone study or specialize in intellectual property law. I dont own the mascot to Notre Dame. If i go buy him, I am sure he will come with whatever rights they wish to assign or not. Your example is irrelevant.  but if you want to play games make a call to DC about the images. they are clearly on display at the site.  let me know how it turns out.  here's their email : [email protected]

William Kious wrote:
If you think you're 100% right, I want you to try a little test. Take the mascot for Notre Dame. Use him in your pictures. Sell them. Sue others for using the pictures. Then, I'll make a telephone call and we'll see what happens.

The two issues are not synonymous with one another. There are similarities, but it's not the same thing. Using an image of the mascot without permission would be similar to using a model's likeness without permission for commercial use. It's complicated, but I can assure you, my attorneys side with me on this one.

sdgillis wrote:
hmm, where else would your copycat style images find a place to be viewed except cosplay fan sites like that? Isn't that the ultimate goal?

This isn't getting published. It's a stolen image used to provide content for their website. Furthermore, what good does it do to have one of my images on another website when nobody knows the origin of it. Once you learn more about the value of licensing your images, you'll be able to answer these types of questions for yourself.

also if you read the whois.com data it refers to enom.com located in Bellevue, WA with a ph# and everything

That's where the domain is registered. That has no bearing whatsoever as to where it's hosted. Two different things.

UltimateAppeal wrote:

Yes as long as you can show that it is the original before alterations. On my Nikon's I now always have the comment field set to also record the copyright information. This can also be done in ACR when you are first processing the images. One note, the information in EXIF can be changed.

Not trying to argue, seriously just curious, it still does not prove that it is "your" image, does it? it only proves that theirs is not the original image.

Shot By Adam wrote:
William, let me explain it to you a different way.

These three websites sell the exact same costume:

http://www.amazon.com/Comics-Deluxe-Bat … B003ES5M8K

http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/rubies … 27-product

http://www.partycity.com/product/batgir … e+adult.do

One is from Amazon, one is from Walgreens, the other is from Party City. It's the exact same photo. It was provided to these different retailers, most likely, from the wholesaler or from the manufacturer. Either way, they are licensing the ability to create the costumes. However, they then take photos of the costumes and distribute it to other vendors who, in turn, sell it at retail.

The retailers are using this photo because the wholesaler/manufacturer gave it to them and the license to use the image to sell the product on their behalf. This doesn't mean that they then have to go pay DC to distribute the rights for that photo that the manufacturer took nor do the retailers have to pay DC to use the photo. The owner of the rights of that photo originate with the company who photographed it, in this case the manufacturer or the wholesaler. The rights to use the logo to create the costumes though are part of a completely separate issue and are unrelated to the photograph itself and how it's used commercially.

Again, not trying to argue but two example-questions
1-how about a picture of an old brick wall with a coca cola logo on it? does anything change if it becomes a part of a downtown scene? I think it does.
2-bigstockphoto.com to my best knowledge does not accept pictures of cars with their logo/make showing even if it is your car

i think the intent of the picture is important here. if it is an editorial picture  situation is different.

Three Cats Photography wrote:

Not trying to argue, seriously just curious, it still does not prove that it is "your" image, does it? it only proves that theirs is not the original image.

As I said back up in this thread what is best to have is RAW file / negative or chrome / copyright registration

Copyright Registration, in the US, must be done before commercially publishing the image (I think there is some time leeway there, like 60 days, not positive). This does not mean you cannot persue someone for infringement, it just negates some of the ways you can claim damages. NOTE: I am not an attorney, just some of what I remember reading about on copyright.gov ... I may have a few points here incorrect or not worded correctly.

Three Cats Photography wrote:

Not trying to argue, seriously just curious, it still does not prove that it is "your" image, does it? it only proves that theirs is not the original image.

the best evidence rule was invented and adopted over 2000 years ago. All you have to do is file an affidavit.  Once they are proven to be infringing they don't get to turn around and claim "oh yeah? well we aren't infringing on you. we are infringing on Dan!"  they would :
a) have zero credibility after it turns out their affidavit was false
b) would have to claim they were knowingly infringing on someone else. not a good thing to do

Three Cats Photography wrote:

Not trying to argue, seriously just curious, it still does not prove that it is "your" image, does it? it only proves that theirs is not the original image.

Pretty much that's all you need. If I own the high-res RAW files, odds are nobody else is going to either. Also, by registering all the photos from the entire shoot, it proves that I didn't just shoot one image but the entire set, which is almost never going to happen when one person steals an image and claims it's theirs.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

the best evidence rule was invented and adopted over 2000 years ago. All you have to do is file an affidavit.  Once they are proven to be infringing they don't get to turn around and claim "oh yeah? well we aren't infringing on you. we are infringing on Dan!"  they would :
a) have zero credibility after it turns out their affidavit was false
b) would have to claim they were knowingly infringing on someone else. not a good thing to do

I agree but if you want to claim damages this would not work by itself. what i understand from this discussion is that always shoot in RAW and copyright the images

Three Cats Photography wrote:

I agree but if you want to claim damages this would not work by itself. what i understand from this discussion is that always shoot in RAW and copyright the images

you own the copyright.  it doesnt matter if you shoot in RAW or jpg or chrome or whatever.  That's built in to your copyright law.  Registering the copyright images gets you a shot at statutory damages in addition to actuals. but you already have the copyright and it doesnt matter if you send in negatives or jpg or RAW.  As long as you have the original RAW or jpg fine or whatever you shoot it's going to be better than theirs.  thats all you need.   Shoot in RAW if it's good for your workflow.

UltimateAppeal wrote:
Copyright Registration, in the US, must be done before commercially publishing the image (I think there is some time leeway there, like 60 days, not positive).

It's 90 days within the time of first commercial publication. Posting the image in a portfolio, on a website, on a blog, or on Model Mayhem does not count. Having the image published, in print, such as a catalog or magazine does.

This does not mean you cannot persue someone for infringement, it just negates some of the ways you can claim damages.

Correct. You own the copyright the instant you take the photo. With that, and only that, you can sue for compensatory damages in the amount of only the value of a standard commercial license as it applies to that image. So if the value is determined to be $80 to commercially license that image to someone based on how it's use, volume of people who see it, etc., then that's the most you can get. By filing your images with the US Patent & Copyright office, it allows you to sue for compensatory AND punitive damages. My attorneys base this number on 10X the value of the license.

To register with them is only $35 and you can register batches of as many photos as  you one on that one application. I file quarterly with them of every single photo I take during that 3 month period of time. All you have to do is take all those photos, reduce them in size to, say 800 X 600 and upload the big .zip file to their server. That's it. You now are pending registration for those images, which is good enough to file for your punitive damages. You do not have to have your application approved yet to do so. A few months later you'll get an email from them confirming the copyrighting of all your images in that batch. It's that easy.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
Shoot in RAW if it's good for your workflow.

I always try to shoot in the raw, but it tends to scare the models away.... not sure what I am doing wrong here?












Adding some brief levity to the conversation before I pull what is left of my hair out!