Lens Diaries Go Now
Glamour, Beauty, Nude, Models, Photographers

*    |  Register  


 
Go Back   Garage Glamour™ > Garage Glamour™ Main Forums > Main Community Forum
 

Main Community Forum General Modeling & Photography Forum
Adult posts prohibited!>>Please Read Our GUIDELINES before posting!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
$100,000 judgement
Old 10-20-2005, 02:25 PM   #1 (permalink)
Always bet on Black

 
JeffBlack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Member GG#: 35682
Location: Tampa
Posts: 147
Comments: 0
Send a message via AIM to JeffBlack

JeffBlack is offline IP: 166.220.77.1
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Yeah right! I am curious, I have read tons of threads here regarding copyright violations and/or infringements. My question have any of you ever received any monetary settlement stemming from a copyright violation.

It seems to me in most cases be it web based or print, the offender just agrees to pull the images.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to JeffBlack Visit JeffBlack's homepage! Find More Posts by JeffBlack
 
Re: $100,000 judgement
Old 10-20-2005, 07:14 PM   #2 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer

 
gregkdavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Member GG#: 38674
Location: Houston
Posts: 384
Comments: 0

gregkdavis is offline IP: 70.114.246.117
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Yes, I scored big time... twice!
It was so obvious you had to be an idiot not to notice.
I digitally watermark my work so there was no mistake.
Didn't even have to go to trial, they just paid up when the
evidence was presented.

Greg.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to gregkdavis Visit gregkdavis's homepage! Find More Posts by gregkdavis
 
Re: $100,000 judgement
Old 10-20-2005, 08:27 PM   #3 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Member GG#: 39259
Location: monona
Posts: 64
Comments: 0

markee is offline IP: 70.226.168.157
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

I spotted a ripped off copy of a photo of a diamond from the company I work for.

We are not sure where they got the photo from but the newspaper that ran the ad said the store supplied the art work. Our diamonds are sold only through exclusive dealers and are are trade marked and patented.

It seems rather strange that only a couple of months earlier our authorized dealer ran and ad in the same paper using the same photo.

It's in the hands of the attorney now so I guessing the offending store will just get a nasty gram from the attorney.


If you want to make your sweet heart happy get her one of these. And for you gals out there let your sweet heart know what will make you happy.

http://www.star129.com
  View Public Profile Send a private message to markee Find More Posts by markee
 
Re: $100,000 judgement
Old 10-20-2005, 08:49 PM   #4 (permalink)
JohnPaul
Guest
 
Member GG#:
Posts: n/a
Comments:

IP: 66.94.222.175
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote



Hmmmm..... Does this have anything to do with that "Jimmy" guy..? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

JP
 
 
Re: $100,000 judgement
Old 10-20-2005, 09:09 PM   #5 (permalink)
Always bet on Black

 
JeffBlack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Member GG#: 35682
Location: Tampa
Posts: 147
Comments: 0
Send a message via AIM to JeffBlack

JeffBlack is offline IP: 166.216.101.76
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

That Jimmy guy is a virus, but no this doesn't have anything to do with him this time...another dude, has sparked my interest. I am just frustrated with it...the cease and desist letters work to a degree, I just hate spending the time to send them out.

Its like the buddy who steals money out of your wallet, then begs and pleads he will never do it again. He is apologizing because he got caught, not because he fessed up to what he did.

So these companies be it internet or magazines use the image, get caught...you send a letter they pull the picture.

The financial recourse seems to be minimal at best...

  View Public Profile Send a private message to JeffBlack Visit JeffBlack's homepage! Find More Posts by JeffBlack
 
Re: $100,000 judgement
Old 10-21-2005, 01:33 AM   #6 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Member GG#: 35977
Posts: 609
Comments: 0

Andy_Pearlman is offline IP: 72.25.123.27
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

I think there's a few reasons why you don't hear about such judgements too often. First, in the "web modeling" world, I don't think too many photographers register their images with the copyright office, so they know they don't have many teeth going into a demand to remove the images. Second, the people who infringe such photos on the web, don't have much in the way of resources, and the photographer opts for the pragmatic approach, and simply settles for removal, knowing that to actually go to federal court is a BIG process, and only worthwhile if the inifringer has some kind of assets. Also, I think most of the bigger would-be infringers don't infringe anymore, because they've gotten aware enough (and lawyers who warn them) not to infringe.

And, there are probably more out-of-court settelments that you don't hear about than actual judgements. Publications like Photo District News would be more likely to feature such stories, since they're of interest to the mainstream photo industry. Also, remember who is infringing our type of images and why. Generally, you won't see a large general interest company like McDonald's rip-off a shot of a hot babe in a bikini - that's not the type of shot they use. But a small "babe" website - again with no assets to speak of - needs that kind of content, but may not have the resources to pay for it (again if they do, I think by now they're being more mindful of the law and paying for their content). No one is making a living off of copyright judgements - except maybe the lawyers - but you're not likely to hear too many stories of actual experience on this site.

Regards,
Andy Pearlman
Andy Pearlman Studio
  View Public Profile Send a private message to Andy_Pearlman Visit Andy_Pearlman's homepage! Find More Posts by Andy_Pearlman
 
No, but ...
Old 10-21-2005, 01:50 AM   #7 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35218
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 717
Comments: 0

Doug_Lester is offline IP: 66.32.233.3
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

No, but a few years ago, a lady I knew fairly well in SC who ran her own profitable adult site and her pix were ripped off by a guy in CA. She filed suit in Federal court and they guy settled very quickly, paying her legal fees and signing over his 'vette to her. I expect it was pretty painful for him.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to Doug_Lester Visit Doug_Lester's homepage! Find More Posts by Doug_Lester
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Sponsors


New To Site? Need Help? Photographer & Model Links
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:27 PM.

© 1999-2017 Garage Glamour™




Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93