Copyright?

[mocando]

I could care less if a person who stole an image has their business damaged. I would welcome it. The reason I think the lawyers give for not posting or publishing the name of an alleged thief is that they can claim that you are engaging in practices that are interfering with their right to do business. "that's just what I want to do" you may be thinking. True, but unless you can prove in court that they stole the image from you and take them to court and win, I believe they can file civil slander suit against you.

Tell all your friends and colleagues. File with the BBB. But unless you are willing to go to court, do it quietly.

 

[cdiver2]

I have been watching this thread with great interest and what came to my mind from the first post up to the present was a case a few years back that was on the news for a number of days.
A professional photographer had put some work on the internet to advertise his work, someone took it from the net and used it commercially, the photographer sued.
The verdict was not guilty, the reason given was. The internet is public domain so anything put on the internet automatically becomes public property.
I don't know if this was appealed with a different outcome or the laws changed. I do see the point that if the internet is public property then what is on it must also be.

 

[ShoalDiverSA]

Great find!

A site that explains copyright in a way that even "clearly copyrighted" will understand:

http://www.cyberbee.com/cb_copyright.swf

Perhaps you should point him to this site.

Cheers,

Andrew

 

[boney]

Wow... after reading the other boards threads and Pedge's email thread this guy is truely someone you love to hate.
cdiver2 - I'm sure any sort of law that has to deal with the Internet changes at least on an annual basis as the Internet changes too fast for people to keep up with. I can understand the verdict that was made several years ago but justleesa's images are clearly copyrighted. It would be interesting to know if like you said he appealed it and what the outcome was.
ShoaldiverSA - LOL - that's a great site!!! Even someone like me can understand it...LOL!
I think checking out the BBB would be a good idea... it should show some sort of history of people complaining about the business. Then we could really tell how much of a "pooface" (had to make it clean) this guy and his business really is...

 

[justleesa]

again, thanks to everybody for the input and support!

 

[justleesa]

Seems that the fellow is feeling the pinch:
http://vintagescuba.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1087825723

 

[Dee]

Sure changed his tune, didn't he? Did he apologize to you personally or only in this post on his message board, where he didn't mention your name?

 

[justleesa]

Nope, nothing to me personally. I guess that he felt pretty locked out as no one was responding to him.

 

[David Evans]

I have this text on each gallery page on my website:

All images ©2000-2002 Puget Sound Diving. Reuse without written permission of the photographer is a violation of international law. Unless otherwise stated in a written agreement, re-use of the images contained herein constitutes agreement to pay the photographer a non-exclusive licensing fee in the amount of US$25,000 per use of each photograph. Entrance into the galleries below constitutes an acceptance of this usage policy by the user of this website and of the parties they represent.

I've had several instances where people have stolen some of my pictures, and have found that an invoice for $25,000 with a pointer to this agreement on my website usually nips the problem in the bud.

Of course, no one has sent me $25,000 yet, but I keep trying.

One important point according to my lawyer:

As a copyright holder, you MUST try to defend your copyright in order to have a shot at future defenses of your copyright. If a defendant can show that you have, in the past, known of copyright infringement and not pursued it, it apparently can significantly weaken your case.

 

[justleesa]

Thank you David!