Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
Did he send you an apology? As far as I am concerned he is "persona non grata"...

Thanks Benjamin--No, I never saw any apology or anything.

I think it's representative how many folks have lost respect for art and property rights--for the blood, sweat, and tears of others'.

Here's another great blog today at one of my favorite blogs:
http://thetrichordist.com/

http://thetrichordist.com/2013/10/09/it … cy-report/

Great reading every day on all related IP issues from the perspective of an artist!  A must read for all artists.

curiosa des yeux wrote:
When I say I don't see the harm

Removing the copyright notice is a crime. You know that, right?

curiosa des yeux wrote:
Otherwise, it seems rare that a private and polite email to someone about any potential concerns would not fix an issue rather than going out and ranting in public on a forum. It really reeks of self importance, IMHO.

While I generally handle any financial dealings privately, in this case of copyright violation I do think that the public disclosure will increase the impact of the violation, make the violator think harder about the next decision, and helps educate the general public that this is a serious mater.  Granted that the OP does have a history of rampant self promotion, but its still a valid approach.

curiosa des yeux wrote:
Call me crazy, but I really don't see the harm in a case like this and I certainly don't see how it costs anyone anything. The OP did not miss out on any opportunity to profit by the image and I don't think anyone would have mistaken the photoshop work as the OP's either, leaving me to wonder exactly what the damages would be if you ever wanted to take this to court. I think the answer from a judge would be: none.

OP missed out on licensing revenu from the douchebag that appropriated the image.
What you are saying is like forgiving a newspaper or magazine for stealing a photo for one of their publications ... no cost to the photographer right?

But ignoring the issue of copyright infringement there is a question of moral rights (where applicable by law) as to the integrity of the work, the right to be associated or not with the image ... finally there are provisions in the DMCA in regards to the removal of rights management data and a recent ruling has judges that watermarks are a form of rights management information.

http://www.photoattorney.com/2007/07/wa … -ears.html

So you see, the law disagrees with you.

Eric Lefebvre wrote:
OP missed out on licensing revenu from the douchebag that appropriated the image.

Yes. This.

curiosa des yeux wrote:
... leaving me to wonder exactly what the damages would be if you ever wanted to take this to court. I think the answer from a judge would be: none.

The actual amount of damages is irrelevant. At the very least, however, the copyright owner WAS damaged to the extent of the loss of the ordinary license fee they might otherwise have charged for the use of the image(s). That might have been only, say, 10 bucks, if that's what a license to use the image was worth to them, but that they were damaged, to even that small amount, is the point.

I don't think the answer from the judge would ever be "none." The amount may be too small to bother fighting over, but it is not zero.

Now, for removing the watermark, not even including an infringement or any other claim:

17 USC 1202 - - -
(c) Award of Damages. —

(1) In general. — Except as otherwise provided in this title, a person committing a violation of section 1201 or 1202 is liable for either —

(A) the actual damages and any additional profits of the violator, as provided in paragraph (2), or

(B) statutory damages, as provided in paragraph (3).

[break in text]

(3)(B) At any time before final judgment is entered, a complaining party may elect to recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of section 1202 in the sum of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000.

So, how much was the copyright owner [the OP] damaged by removal of their copyright management information - their watermark? Well, it wasn't  "none" as you seem to think, but in fact they were damaged at least $2500 bucks worth! If they choose to pursue the matter that is the bare bones minimum the other side would be liable for ... and they could get a lot more if the violation was wilful, blatant and commercially motivated.

AND, an action under this section of the copyright act does not even depend on the images being formally registered at all.

If it was my image I think I might be inclined to send the sucker an offer to settle immediately for half the minimum statutory damages [$1250] or go to law and get it all, and watch him choke up.

Studio36

romen cole wrote:

STONE HIM IN THE CITY MARKET!!

ha.

HJM Photography wrote:
Photographer/retoucher removes my watermark, edits photo with faux bokeh/alien skin (which I hate), & adds his own watermark!

His photo:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid … 17cee7b5ae

Original Photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/herosjourn … 411656511/

Really?  What are people thinking?

He comments, "De hele serie is inderdaad mooi! Te bezichtigen op zijn Flickr account!" which means, "The whole series is indeed beautiful! Be seen on his Flickr account!"  But he provides no link.  lol.

Oh no! That is brutal! That user needs to be taken down.

curiosa des yeux wrote:
I'm a bit opposite of the views expressed so far, though I can say I don't know the person on Facebook and I'm not sticking up for that person either. Personally, I think the community of photographers is a little too sensy-poo about some of these "thieves". Call me crazy, but I really don't see the harm in a case like this and I certainly don't see how it costs anyone anything. The OP did not miss out on any opportunity to profit by the image and I don't think anyone would have mistaken the photoshop work as the OP's either, leaving me to wonder exactly what the damages would be if you ever wanted to take this to court. I think the answer from a judge would be: none.

It's one thing it there are legitimate damages incurred, but it's another if there isn't. I've only had one instance over the years where I felt that someone truly violated my rights in a way that warranted compensation, and it was when an employee of a company who hired me for corporate work had moved on to a different company and continued to use the portraits I provided his ex-employer (who also was the paying party). Additionally, this person used the images in an industry publication announcing that he'd been hired by his new employer, without permission from myself.

Otherwise, it seems rare that a private and polite email to someone about any potential concerns would not fix an issue rather than going out and ranting in public on a forum. It really reeks of self importance, IMHO.

Others have beaten this to death already, but it is rude, impolite, and dishonest to use someone else's image, put your own watermark on it, and brand the image as your own...even if no monetary damages exist.

And since the image "thief", was dishonest, then he doesn't deserve the courtesy of a private message. He chose to make his deception public.

curiosa des yeux wrote:
rather than going out and ranting in public on a forum. It really reeks of self importance, IMHO.

You're funny