We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Stupid I know but help needed
Comments
-
Flyonthewall wrote: »Yeah an unsold single photograph listed at £1.20 just once on 1 site is the same as stealing a photo of stars and using them commercially on a wide range of advertising materials...
What the OP did was wrong, but it was nothing like that article. I bet that image is still available online as well so if the photographer really cares they need to go to the source of the sharing. The OP got the photo from somewhere online. If it was from the site of the person who took the photo they need to do more to protect their images.
Its exactly the same and we can only do so much to protect images online from thieves. I really dislike taking people to court over image theft but my accountant says 'its easy money for my business'.0 -
Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »Only an idiot would try and defend the indefensible.
No one is defending what the OP did. Sure we all agree that it was wrong to take it, nevermind try to sell it. But comparing this very small case with no sale to a business who stole an image for mass marketing is stupid, the two cases are nothing alike.0 -
Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »Its exactly the same and we can only do so much to protect images online from thieves. I really dislike taking people to court over image theft but my accountant says 'its easy money for my business'.
Ok, let's see how similar it is.
They both involved a photo
The photo was stolen
Both attempted to make a profit from a stolen photo.
Now the differences.
One is a business, the other is an individual
One mass marketed the photo, the other placed it on ebay for a few days
One made money (probably a large amount) from marketing using the stolen photo and the other made no profit (if anything they lost money through insertion fees)
One was marketed by a promotional company who, considering it's their business, should know better than to use a stolen photo and they did know it was used without permission, the other didn't realise the photo belonged to someone else when they tried to sell it.
Not seeing how that is exactly the same.0 -
Flyonthewall wrote: »No one is defending what the OP did. Sure we all agree that it was wrong to take it, nevermind try to sell it. But comparing this very small case with no sale to a business who stole an image for mass marketing is stupid, the two cases are nothing alike.
Every poster telling the OP to ignore the request for payment is defending the OP.. The simple FACT is that although the op never sold a copy of the image the intention was there and if this case were to go to court the photographer WOULD walk away from court with a 4 figure pay-out.0 -
Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »Every poster telling the OP to ignore the request for payment is defending the OP.. The simple FACT is that although the op never sold a copy of the image the intention was there and if this case were to go to court the photographer WOULD walk away from court with a 4 figure pay-out.
Well as it's only a £350 request, I guess we will just have to take your word for that.
0 -
Flyonthewall wrote: »Ok, let's see how similar it is.
They both involved a photo
The photo was stolen
Both attempted to make a profit from a stolen photo.
Now the differences.
One is a business, the other is an individual
One mass marketed the photo, the other placed it on ebay for a few days
One made money (probably a large amount) from marketing using the stolen photo and the other made no profit (if anything they lost money through insertion fees)
One was marketed by a promotional company who, considering it's their business, should know better than to use a stolen photo and they did know it was used without permission, the other didn't realise the photo belonged to someone else when they tried to sell it.
Not seeing how that is exactly the same.
The court would see the OP as a business and not as an individual.
Whilst the link provided was taking things to the extreme the basics regarding copyright/image theft are still the same. And unlike most people in this thread I've actually been through the process many times over the last couple of years where someone has stolen my images and put them on ebay so I kind of know what I'm talking about.0 -
Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »Every poster telling the OP to ignore the request for payment is defending the OP.. The simple FACT is that although the op never sold a copy of the image the intention was there and if this case were to go to court the photographer WOULD walk away from court with a 4 figure pay-out.
They said to ignore an unofficial letter or to ask for a breakdown for the payment they're asking for. There has been no letter from a solicitor.
The person who sent the letter could be anyone at all at this point.
I mean, what's to stop me looking for sites with images or going through ebay listings, finding some contact details and sending them a letter (or email) telling them to pay me £xxx amount or I'll sue them? A stupidly large amount of people on the Internet have copyrighted images and it's not generally too hard to find some form of contact details.
I've seen ebay listings with T-Shirts or canvas images and so on that I'm sure are using copyrighted images.
How many would pay up out of fear knowing the images aren't theirs when in reality the images aren't mine either.
Should all them people pay up too because of an unofficial letter and the fact the images aren't theirs?
Sure the OP was wrong, but if the photographer is serious about this and really does own copyright then they should do things properly. Otherwise, who's to say that we're not actually protecting the OP from a scam? The OP hasn't said they know the person who sent the letter or anything.0 -
theonlywayisup wrote: »Well as it's only a £350 request, I guess we will just have to take your word for that.
As soon as it gets to court there are added costs which is why it is always prudent to settle before it gets that far.0 -
Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »The court would see the OP as a business and not as an individual.
Whilst the link provided was taking things to the extreme the basics regarding copyright/image theft are still the same. And unlike most people in this thread I've actually been through the process many times over the last couple of years where someone has stolen my images and put them on ebay so I kind of know what I'm talking about.
Why would they? They weren't operating as a business.
Did your photos all sell?0 -
Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »Every poster telling the OP to ignore the request for payment is defending the OP.. The simple FACT is that although the op never sold a copy of the image the intention was there and if this case were to go to court the photographer WOULD walk away from court with a 4 figure pay-out.
Why would the photographer get a "4 figure pay-out" given the disputed amount is £350 - a low three figure amount?
You seem to be trying to scare OP into paying the invoice?"Love you Dave Brooker! x"
"i sent a letter headded sales of god act 1979"0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards