Copyright Infringement Reports (Review guidelines in post #1 before posting here)

[Lanny Dean]

I have been in meetings and taking care of business all day and have not had a chance to really get back in here. That said, here is the situation:

Jeremy stole 2 pics of mine from an agency or off the net. He then used them in his publication (which I thought was actually a great weather tool) without my permission. After doing my homework(calling the agency/sending them e-mails) it became clear that those were my photos and they were stolen. All of this was done before I made ANY contact with him on this forum. I wanted to make 100% sure that I was not mistaken. So to those who have bitched about the way I have handled this and to those who have accused me of not doing my homework, do us all a favor and do your homework before you get on here and start running your mouth. This is directed at a few but most particualarly to Mr. Matthew Carman.


At that point I made an open comment to him and requested that he contact me ASAP in private. He finally sent me a PM (you can see all this in ST) and I replied with a full C&D. He then lied again saying that I did not send him any pm or anything to his inbox and then he decided to take this further into public light by posting more here over and over and over.

Of course I am going to "hammer" him....he stole from me and then tried to cover it up by saying that he did not understand copyright laws/issues all the while putting a copyright on his work. He then apologized directly to me informing me that the reason he did not sell originally was becuase he did not feel comfortable with the copyrights of said original work. RED FLAGS anyone???
Jeremy, you knew from the start there was an issue with copyrights, you admitted that more than once. I have no doubt that you bought "some" pics from the website you listed, problem is thats not the website mine were on and those three pics were not the ones in question. Those are not mine, I did not take those and have no idea or care where those came from.

Nothing really more to say about it. He was caught and he is now trying to talk his way out of it publically. While his work was no doubt a nice peice, one in which I really liked and think would be very helpful to many, it does not change the fact that it had stolen images in it and it does not matter if the "publication" was intended to sell or to be given away, you just can not go around stealing peoples images and using them for your own work.

And finally,
I did not request that he take down or get rid of his work....I only requested that he remove my images. Truth be told, I would have been happy to give him my images had he requested them to start with....thats the sad thing.

To those that were bitching so much....I would love to see how any one of you would have handled a situation like this much less all the **** talking that has been going on. Many of you know me personally and know that I have no hidden agenda, what I type here is exactly what I would say to you in public. I do not have the need to steal to try and prove myself just so others will accept me as a real chaser. I have paid my dues and this is who I am, if you like me then thats great if not I really don't give a ****. But I will not allow anyone to steal from me and I would suspect that many if not all of you would have a real problem if this was your work or you were in the same situation as I.
This is a clear case of a "newbie" who did not do HIS homework and simply pulled some pictures off of the net to use in a "publication".
Now feel free to bitch some more at me people about how I did not do my homework and how badly I handled the situation!!!

 

[Jeremy Den Hartog]

I have been in meetings and taking care of business all day and have not had a chance to really get back in here. That said, here is the situation:

Jeremy stole 2 pics of mine from an agency or off the net. He then used them in his publication (which I thought was actually a great weather tool) without my permission. After doing my homework(calling the agency/sending them e-mails) it became clear that those were my photos and they were stolen. All of this was done before I made ANY contact with him on this forum. I wanted to make 100% sure that I was not mistaken. So to those who have bitched about the way I have handled this and to those who have accused me of not doing my homework, do us all a favor and do your homework before you get on here and start running your mouth. This is directed at a few but most particualarly to Mr. Matthew Carman.


At that point I made an open comment to him and requested that he contact me ASAP in private. He finally sent me a PM (you can see all this in ST) and I replied with a full C&D. He then lied again saying that I did not send him any pm or anything to his inbox and then he decided to take this further into public light by posting more here over and over and over.

Of course I am going to "hammer" him....he stole from me and then tried to cover it up by saying that he did not understand copyright laws/issues all the while putting a copyright on his work. He then apologized directly to me informing me that the reason he did not sell originally was becuase he did not feel comfortable with the copyrights of said original work. RED FLAGS anyone???
Jeremy, you knew from the start there was an issue with copyrights, you admitted that more than once. I have no doubt that you bought "some" pics from the website you listed, problem is thats not the website mine were on and those three pics were not the ones in question. Those are not mine, I did not take those and have no idea or care where those came from.

Nothing really more to say about it. He was caught and he is now trying to talk his way out of it publically. While his work was no doubt a nice peice, one in which I really liked and think would be very helpful to many, it does not change the fact that it had stolen images in it and it does not matter if the "publication" was intended to sell or to be given away, you just can not go around stealing peoples images and using them for your own work.

And finally,
I did not request that he take down or get rid of his work....I only requested that he remove my images. Truth be told, I would have been happy to give him my images had he requested them to start with....thats the sad thing.

To those that were bitching so much....I would love to see how any one of you would have handled a situation like this much less all the **** talking that has been going on. Many of you know me personally and know that I have no hidden agenda, what I type here is exactly what I would say to you in public. I do not have the need to steal to try and prove myself just so others will accept me as a real chaser. I have paid my dues and this is who I am, if you like me then thats great if not I really don't give a ****. But I will not allow anyone to steal from me and I would suspect that many if not all of you would have a real problem if this was your work or you were in the same situation as I.
This is a clear case of a "newbie" who did not do HIS homework and simply pulled some pictures off of the net to use in a "publication".
Now feel free to bitch some more at me people about how I did not do my homework and how badly I handled the situation!!!

Lanny do you read anything I post or do you just throw out the same accusations and insults over and over again because somehow you feel doing so somehow makes you 'right'? How many times have I asked you now to let me know exactly which images you are referring to? Did I not say at least a couple times that I can show you proof if you would just tell me which images are yours (I honestly have no idea)? Could it not be that I did actually buy the images from a stock photography site (like I said) which would be why I have no idea which images are yours? I have managed to dig up ALL proof for the images I have used. I was mistaken, however, in my credits for the book. In addition to 'BigStockPhotography' and 'Wikipedia', A fair amount of the images came from the NWS and NSSL websites which are images considered to be 'public domain' and can be used in documents of this nature. Furthermore, how dare you try to put words in my mouth. When exactly did I state specifically that I do not understand copyright law? I said that I did not understand with 100% confidence how the copyrights for the images I used in my guide worked. In other words, what could be and could not be done with images that fell under the 'GNU' license - more specifically if they could be used commercially which is why I did not pursue things commercially and eventually just gave the guide away for free. Lanny, it seems you have a VERY bad habit of putting words in peoples mouths which I (and I'm sure others) do NOT appreciate.

I have been more then willing to try to resolve this issue with you Lanny. All you need to do is inform me which images are in question and I would have simply replaced them with different images (yet for some reason you choose to not let me know). I mean really, how am I even supposed to know if the images you 'claim' I stole from you are actually YOUR images? For all I know, the images aren't really yours and this is just some messed up attempt on your part to try to make me look bad.

To be 100% clear - I DO NOT KNOW WHICH IMAGES ARE YOURS WHICH IS WHY I REMOVED THE GUIDE ENTIRELY UNTIL I DO!! There, hopefully that is clear enough for you. I will give you 24 hours to contact me with exactly which images you are referring to (and I will remove/replace them - which to be clear isn't something I need to do but will do to try to avoid anything further in regards to this issue). Otherwise I will re-upload the guide as-is. If you feel you need to pursue legal actions against me then so be it. I can assure you that if you do, I will counter-sue on the grounds of 'Defamation, Libel and Slander'. Its really your choice, Lanny, how you want to go about this.

 

[James Langford]

Hey, what happened to Shane's post? He had an interesting story about some things that happened to him in this area, but now it's all gone. Was it/he muzzled???? Strange.

 

[Jeremy Den Hartog]

On a side note, I want to publicly thank everyone here who sent me PM messages of encouragement and offers to use their images in my guide if need be. I thank you all very much and plan to update/alter and maybe even add to the guide in the near future. I will let all of you know if I need some images for this project and like the guide 'in question' in this thread plan to also release the 'altered' guide for 100% free back to the community...

 

[Bob Hall]

WRONG!!!

In addition to 'BigStockPhotography' and 'Wikipedia', A fair amount of the images came from the NWS and NSSL websites which are images considered to be 'public domain' and can be used in documents of this nature.

Many of us allow our images to be licensed for free by various governmental agencies. It in no way diminishes our copyright or allows you to steal them because they were not created by tax payer dollars and are not in the public domain.

 

[Jeremy Den Hartog]

WRONG!!!



Many of us allow our images to be licensed for free by various governmental agencies. It in no way diminishes our copyright or allows you to steal them because they were not created by tax payer dollars and are not in the public domain.

I believe you are mistaken unless I am reading the following wrong...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

Here is an example of one of the images I used. Look towards the bottom where it says 'licensing'. It says the image is in 'public domain'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F5_tornado_damage_example.jpg

Also, see the below link. This is another place where I got many of the images. It states they are public domain images.
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/torscans.htm

 

[Steve Miller]

This is retarded on so many levels.
Jeremy, if you bought the images, use them and produce proof you bought them if you want this to go away. Yeah, I agree, you shouldn't have to prove Sh1t but welcome to the world of weather chasing.
I see where Lanny is coming from and, in his defense, all of this could be occurring in PM where he advised you take it. Attempting to hang him out to dry will not work here.
For everyone else who has whined in this thread at any given time, stop putting your best freaking work on the internet and expecting it to not get stolen.
That is all, carry on.

 

[Jeremy Den Hartog]

This is retarded on so many levels.
Jeremy, if you bought the images, use them and produce proof you bought them if you want this to go away. Yeah, I agree, you shouldn't have to prove ***** but welcome to the world of weather chasing.
I see where Lanny is coming from and, in his defense, all of this could be occurring in PM where he advised you take it. Attempting to hang him out to dry will not work here.
For everyone else who has whined in this thread at any given time, stop putting your best freaking work on the internet and expecting it to not get stolen.
That is all, carry on.

Thank you for your advice. Please keep in mind that Lanny initially commented publicly that I had 'stolen' his images (a pretty serious accusation) and then demanded I PM him. How would you suppose people would 'take' that accusation if I made no attempt at defending myself and handled everything through PM? IMO, Lanny decided to start things 'in the public eye' so at this point they should remain there until the issue has been resolved. However, If he wants to move things to PM only then I will gladly do the same but first he must discontinue publicly throwing accusations and insults my way...and maybe make an attempt to communicate with me so we can resolve this issue.

 

[Joey Ketcham]

Lanny don't take this the wrong way but I don't know if Jeremy stole your photographs and I don't care to be honest. The way you treated Jeremy was uncalled for and wrong. You should have kept this private and tried to resolve it peacefully. I should have probably not said anything since this not my business but I feel we are a community here and nobody should be treated that way. You asked me what I would do in your shoes. I honestly don't know but it takes alot more than two photographs to make me mad. They are nice to have but in the end that is it.

Lanny anger leads to stress and stress leads to heart attacks. That is a proven fact. I talked to a chaser who almost died from stress. I have family members who have been in far worse situations than yours. I have two family members in jail right now and a niece and nephew I never see anymore. I was very close to them and saw them almost every day. Trust me I know how you feel and many times I felt like just screaming at people just to relieve my stress. I almost went into a depression once. I have only one life to live on earth and I don't want to waste it being angry all the time. I would rather spend it being happy and just accepting the fact these things will happen. I have to deal with it. Two photographs is certainly not worth all of this drama unless Jeremy refuses to stop using them (if they were illegal) and he is trying to resolve this peacefully. He has been nice to you so far. I would hate to see this end badly or worse go to the courts and I would hate to hear you received a heart attack one day in the future from stress.

I want you to know I do not hate you or dislike you. I think you are a nice person and I respect what you do. Everyone has times like this and I am not going to judge you for the way you are acting now or the way you act on line. Lord knows I have said far worse before and I know nobody is perfect. I hope you take what I said and think about it. Everything can be resolved peacefully if both people are willing. Only you can choose how you respond to other people. Would you rather have Jeremy as a friend or an enemy? I would hate to see two photographs ruin what could be a good friendship between you two.

I think I have said to much and I am going to step out of this thread now. God Bless, Matthew carman.

I highly doubt Lanny is stressing over this and will lead to a heart attack. Lanny, understandably, is upset to come across a guide (free or not) that is using his photographs that he didn't give permission to use.

The guide Jeremy wrote is great, Lanny even said this himself. The only problem is Jeremy took photographs and published them without permission. I know a few posts back Jeremy provided screenshots of photographs he purchased from this photo stock company, but Lanny made it clear that none of those pictures belonged to him and he had no idea who's pictures those were. So we have yet to see proof that Jeremy legally use those pictures.

They hypocrisy on here amazes me. A few short years ago a lynch mob was formed on here by everyone ready to hang another ST member for stealing pictures, now some of those same Lynch mob members are defending Jeremy. Where do we draw the line on what is considered as stealing and not stealing?

It's a great publication, but stealing someone else's photographs to use in it is no different than stealing someone's pictures and posting them on your website.

I'm going to side with Lanny on this, he has every right to be upset. And to say well, if you don't want your pictures stolen than don't post them is like saying if you don't want your car stolen than don't park it outside your garage. That is stupid. You should be able to post your work without having to worry about a thief coming along stealing your work.

 

[john.sibley]

Lanny,
What pages of the pdf are the offending images on so everyone will know?



MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!!!!!

 

[Robert Dewey]

They hypocrisy on here amazes me. A few short years ago a lynch mob was formed on here by everyone ready to hang another ST member for stealing pictures, now some of those same Lynch mob members are defending Jeremy. Where do we draw the line on what is considered as stealing and not stealing?

I think the problem is that there is no proof. This spat between two individuals... who have previously had spats on here... has been made public, with neither of them showing proof. A few years ago, it was clear... We had side-by-side pictures that were cropped.

I don't think that Jeremy is denying that he used Lanny's photos (unlike the case a few years ago)... Instead, he's saying he received them legally from Wikipedia, Big Stock Photo, etc.. It would be nearly impossible to tell if he's lying. Lanny has never really said whether he has uploaded photos to any of those sources... and it's not without possibility that someone else may have uploaded them illegally. Put it into another perspective - you find a funny clip of Terry Tate and embed it into a forum post. Reebok sues you for copyright infringement. The liability falls onto the person who uploaded the content, or the service itself if they haven't taken steps to protect themselves.

This really makes me think twice about buying stock photos. If this is the hassle that I'd have to go through...

 

[Patrick Boomer]

The only problem is Jeremy took photographs and published them without permission. I know a few posts back Jeremy provided screenshots of photographs he purchased from this photo stock company, but Lanny made it clear that none of those pictures belonged to him and he had no idea who's pictures those were. So we have yet to see proof that Jeremy legally use those pictures.

They hypocrisy on here amazes me. A few short years ago a lynch mob was formed on here by everyone ready to hang another ST member for stealing pictures, now some of those same Lynch mob members are defending Jeremy. Where do we draw the line on what is considered as stealing and not stealing?

It's a great publication, but stealing someone else's photographs to use in it is no different than stealing someone's pictures and posting them on your website.

So he's guilty until he proves his innocence?
How does that work?

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier for Lanny to mention which photos he is talking about? Not sure why he is reluctant to do this, but the paddlings he is giving out got me doing some homework myself and now I am interested to see which are the photos in question.

Jeremy listed his sources in the guide.
I have found all of the photos but one, and they all came from where he says they did.
To suggest he now needs to prove to anybody where he got every one of these photos, with no proof of stealing, is just ridiculous.

 

[Chris C Sanner]

The guide Jeremy wrote is great, Lanny even said this himself. The only problem is Jeremy took photographs and published them without permission. I know a few posts back Jeremy provided screenshots of photographs he purchased from this photo stock company, but Lanny made it clear that none of those pictures belonged to him and he had no idea who's pictures those were. So we have yet to see proof that Jeremy legally use those pictures.

The problem is, Jeremy doesn't even know which pictures are in question. That's what he is trying to get, the pictures in question so he can prove he bought them or used them from a Public Domain (.gov) source or from BigStockPhoto.

To say one person or the other is guilty right now is jumping the gun. Until sufficient proof is given either way (which it can't be if Lanny doesn't identify which pictures are in question) then there is absolutely no way for any of us schmucks to make a judgement.

I think it's possible Jeremy is using Lanny's photos within what he thinks is his legal right after purchasing them off of BSP. However, I got a bad feeling someone might've bought Lanny's photos on whatever site Lanny sells them on and then decided, "Hey, I can sell these for cheap and make a little money on BigStockPhoto." Thus, Jeremy bought the photos on there without him knowing. All speculation on my part, but that's a definite possibility which many are overlooking.

Hopefully Lanny can ID the photos so Jeremy can either show the proof of purchase or not. Really, this thing could be solved in a matter of moments one way or the other.

 

[Jim Saueressig]

WRONG!!!

In addition to 'BigStockPhotography' and 'Wikipedia', A fair amount of the images came from the NWS and NSSL websites which are images considered to be 'public domain' and can be used in documents of this nature.

Many of us allow our images to be licensed for free by various governmental agencies. It in no way diminishes our copyright or allows you to steal them because they were not created by tax payer dollars and are not in the public domain.

Agreed. I have let the NWS use a few of my images but that didn't mean I threw out my rights....

 

[Rich Long]

Agreed. I have let the NWS use a few of my images but that didn't mean I threw out my rights....

From http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/about.html

About the Images


Restrictions for Using NOAA Images

Most NOAA photos and slides are in the public domain and CANNOT be copyrighted.
There is no fee for downloading any images on the NOAA Photo Library. Educational use is encouraged as the primary goal of the NOAA Photo Library is to help all understand our oceans and atmosphere so as to be better stewards of our environment for future generations.

A few photos in the NOAA Photo Library that are known to have copyright restrictions are so noted in the caption information associated with those images.
Credit MUST be given to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Department of Commerce. Where a photographer is noted, please credit the photographer and his/her affiliated organization as well.



You are correct but for the sake of simplicity I'd make very sure they note it's copyrighted. I really wish they would not except copyrighted stuff at all especially after all this. It makes the point of "known to be copyrighted." The problem with that is what if it is copyrighted but NOAA didn't know? I come along and write a guide for my spotter program and use one (Which I'm working on for the murfreesboro, Tn tornado and scared to death now). There is no way for me to know if it's public domain or someones work. We are a non profit group so you bet I'm trying to go for the public domain shots. I'd hate to receive the reaction and grief Jeremy is getting right now over something, which in this case would clearly, not be my fault.