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
-
Brooker_Dave wrote: »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?
Quite.
6 posts, all on this subject. The cynic in me would say they had registered just to scare the OP into paying......
0 -
Flyonthewall wrote: »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.
the thief being scammed .. oh the irony and something I wouldn't lose sleep over.
the normal procedure would be.. [1] direct contact requesting payment [2] direct contact as above but informing op that should he/she fail to pay then my solicitor would be in touch and the incurred legal cost to myself would be added to the invoice.. normally this works out at an extra £125. [3] solicitor contacts offender and added costs spiral out of control..0 -
Flyonthewall wrote: »Why would they? They weren't operating as a business.
Did your photos all sell?
in the eyes of the law they are.. and some did and other were caught early. pay-out was roughly the same I each case.0 -
Brooker_Dave wrote: »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?
as soon as it get to court theres added costs.. as a photographer it costs me money [loss of income] to spend days sitting waiting to give evidence etc.. this is added to the final pay-out as well as legal fees.
personally I couldn't give a monkeys if the op pays or not.. but hopefully you armchair warriors will learn a little.. but from what ive seen so far its rather unlikely!0 -
Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »in the eyes of the law they are.. and some did and other were caught early. pay-out was roughly the same I each case.
Why? In the eyes of the law, what makes them a business?
Your case was a bit different then as the person did profit from it. I assume they were also selling for more than £1.20?0 -
Flyonthewall wrote: »Why? In the eyes of the law, what makes them a business?
Your case was a bit different then as the person did profit from it. I assume they were also selling for more than £1.20?
it doesn't matter whether they profit or not.. the intent was there.. not to mention copyright theft.. etc..0 -
Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »the thief being scammed .. oh the irony and something I wouldn't lose sleep over.
So you're defending scammers?
I mean, if us saying ignore an unofficial letter is defending the OP then surely that means you ignoring the OP possibly being scammed means you're defending scammers.0 -
Flyonthewall wrote: »So you're defending scammers?
I mean, if us saying ignore an unofficial letter is defending the OP then surely that means you ignoring the OP possibly being scammed means you're defending scammers.
not defending just pointing out the cruel but funny irony should it ever happen...0 -
Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »it doesn't matter whether they profit or not.. the intent was there.. not to mention copyright theft.. etc..
It wasn't an intent to sell a copyrighted image, it was accidental listing of a copyrighted image. They didn't think hey this is copyrighted, but I'll sell it and make some money.
Not arguing with the theft of it.
And I still want to know why they would be seen as a business.0 -
Flyonthewall wrote: »It wasn't an intent to sell a copyrighted image, it was accidental listing of a copyrighted image. They didn't think hey this is copyrighted, but I'll sell it and make some money.
Not arguing with the theft of it.
And I still want to know why they would be seen as a business.
'accidental listing'? the ops stupidity/lack of understanding of copyright is no defence. she nicked it and thought she could make some easy money.. hardly accidental!
why is it classed as a business.. because they are sourcing items/images specifically to sell, ideally for a profit.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
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards