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

[Robert Dewey]

I may get slapped for saying it, but I think this whole thing is just pure horse****. Most good attorney's are smart enough to only go for deep pockets in cases like this, yet we sit here and beat the **** out of a kid from MN. Unbelievable.

If it's not a contingency-fee and you're paying out of pocket, a lawyer would take the case. But, I do agree with the rest of what you're saying. This has been taken way too far IMO for the amount of "damage" that has been done. Lanny supposedly sent a C&D, Jeremy complied and took down the guide... should be case closed.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Clarence, lets try to keep this thread from going offroad, eh?

For some chasers, their photography or their video is their income. It's pretty understandable that they'd be tetchy about finding other chasers using their images or videos without permission or authority of law. Most people who infringe images don't realize just how much an image use can be worth; it's much more than pocket change. The industry standard rate for a couple of 1/4 page images in the kind of low-distribution e-book publication Jeremy is putting out is over $300. People who can't afford those rates use microstock like iStockPhoto. Their selection of storm images isn't exactly huge, but then you get what you pay for.

I'm not sure if posting about such issues in a public forum is the best course of action; however, if anything good can be taken from this, it can be that this thread is educational for all chasers: be careful where you get your images.

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

If it's not a contingency-fee and you're paying out of pocket, a lawyer would take the case. But, I do agree with the rest of what you're saying. This has been taken way too far IMO for the amount of "damage" that has been done. Lanny supposedly sent a C&D, Jeremy complied and took down the guide... should be case closed.

If what he says is true, give the guy a break. If he's truthful, than you're likely dealing with someone else who stole the image, and someone who might actually be worth going after. Really, I'm shocked he went as far as he did to keep track of where the photos came from, I'd say that's bigger steps than most folks would take. Really he's going above and beyond by taking the guide down if he acquired the images as he says. And even if god forbid he did use an image without permission, it's not like you're dealing with Chevy using your photo in some huge marketing campaign. I've come across a few of my images used for "not for profit" purposes several times, and while I requested they give credit or take them down and in the future FIRST get permission, getting my attorney involved never crossed my mind.

Unless you have solid proof the guy is lieing, don't ruin his holidays by scaring him into thinking he's up against a court case with fees above his means...

-Then again, if he's telling the truth he has no reason to be scared...

 

[Jeremy Den Hartog]

-Then again, if he's telling the truth he has no reason to be scared...

I'm not scared of the outcome of the trial as I really haven't done anything 'wrong'. What I'm scared of are the expenses involved if it went to trial...

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I'm not scared of the outcome of the trial as I really haven't done anything 'wrong'. What I'm scared of are the expenses involved if it went to trial...

I would strongly suggest you seek professional legal representation if any kind of monetary demand is made or has been made to you. You are misinformed about your potential liabilities if you have used a copyrighted image without license from the copyright holder or authority of law.

And stop talking about it in here.

 

[Matt Gingery]

Does the photography in question without any doubt resemble the original photography shot? I know I notice photography that resembles mine on certain storms, only because there are dozens of chasers around shooting photography of the same storm. Just to make sure there isn't a possibilty of a mix-up. I am not taking sides in this, I just want to bring up the point. This last season my chase buddy had the exact same camera as I did and we shot the same footage. If he posts a shot that is so similar to mine that you cannot tell the suttle differences, what to do then? There is ligitimate copyright infringement going on all the time. Just like writing a research paper, you have to post your sources to protect yourself. If this involves the selling of merchandise then it could pose a problem. I know in the chase cases I have used footage from chaser friends to fill in the end result on the cases, but I also let them know that I am using it. Mix-ups do happen, and I am sure no one would be short sighted enough to try to pass photos they didn't shoot off as there own in a small world such as this, cuz it will come back to bite them. Im just chiming in on the subject for lack of anything better to do, so I wish the best of luck to both parties in the matter.

 

[Robert Dewey]

I'm not scared of the outcome of the trial as I really haven't done anything 'wrong'. What I'm scared of are the expenses involved if it went to trial...

The problem is that even if you did buy the photos from Big Stock (or whatever site), their user agreement holds you liable if that photo was illegally uploaded. I'd stay away from Big Stock, and fully read the agreement for other stock photo companies.

Legitimate question - does the copyright owner have the right to not pursue a case such as this? I know you can lose your trademark if you don't protect it... are copyrights any different? Could Lanny basically say "Jeremy took down the guide, this has been corrected"? Also, Lanny originally stated that he would have given Jeremy a free license for the photos if he would have asked... did he limit actual damages by stating that?

Reading through copyright law...

In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.

It seems possible the above might apply... but still, there could be "actual" damages.

What if you can't afford an attorney, as Ryan suggests? Would it be up to Lanny to pursue the case and prove willful infringement (for statutory damages) and the amount of actual damages?

 

[Rich Long]

It's kind of sad though. You go to a "reputable" photo stock place and buy something and this kind of thing happens (Assuming thats the way it went down). I guess I would just expect that if I went and bought something from a company I'd assume it wasn't stolen. I can't believe the bit about the end user being responsible either. That's a crappy way to do business considering the reason you use a place like that is to get photo's that won't get you in trouble in the first place.

Assuming everything we heard is true, morally at least, it sounds like the photo company should be the one taking the fall or assisting in the location of the original seller. I know I know, legally thats not the case.

Sucks for everyone involved, everyone.

 

[Dave Kaplow]

I'm no expert, certainly not a lawyer, and as one of those rare chasers who chooses not to document what I chase on film, I have absolutely no axe to grind here either way... However, it does seem to me that the legal disclaimer at BigStockPhoto.com should perhaps be taken with a little salt. I know that a lot of these "buried in the fine print" disclaimers, which are rampant in the online world, are considered to be essentially meaningless by legal scholars, and most have never been challenged or upheld in an actual court of law. My point is, just because a web business says somewhere on its site that you absolve them of all legal responsibility, it doesn't necessarily make it so! So far everyone seems to be just assuming that this disclaimer, which presumably one has to sign in order to do any business with Big Stock, is completely valid. I'm not sure we should necessarily be making that assumption. I have certainly heard of similar claims being found ultimately to be worthless when the case actually gets to trial. I would put the disclaimers most chase tours have their customers sign in the same category - they may or may not provide some legal protection in the event of an actual lawsuit or criminal case, but I wouldn't count on it.

 

[Steve Miller]

I may get slapped for saying it, but I think this whole thing is just pure horse****. Most good attorney's are smart enough to only go for deep pockets in cases like this, yet we sit here and beat the **** out of a kid from MN. Unbelievable.

But Clarence, can you identify who on this board has deep pockets and who does not? Fact is, don't F with people's property.

 

[Patrick Boomer]

Because there is legal involved, the latest copyright issue will probably not come to light on this public thread.

The only thing I have seen so far that could involve a lawyer is Lanny's attack on Jeremy.
Lanny started this but will not finish it. The mods have nothing to say about these accusations with no proof?
If the tables were turned can anyone imagine what this thread would look like?

From what I can see, at this time enough has been said for a libel suit.
Accusing someone of being a thief repeatedly with no proof is trouble.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Legitimate question - does the copyright owner have the right to not pursue a case such as this? I know you can lose your trademark if you don't protect it... are copyrights any different? Could Lanny basically say "Jeremy took down the guide, this has been corrected"?

Yep. There is nothing in the law that forces one to pursue any copyright action. Here is a really good guide written by an attorney that explains your options if your images or videos are infringed.

Again, I repeat (and this isn't directed at you, Robert): there is a lot of armchair lawyerin' going on in this thread. Generally only stupid people take advice from the internet when it comes to legal matters. If you have questions about legal liability and someone is threatening an action against you, speak to a lawyer.

 

[Steve Miller]

The only thing I have seen so far that could involve a lawyer is Lanny's attack on Jeremy.
Lanny started this but will not finish it. The mods have nothing to say about these accusations with no proof?
If the tables were turned can anyone imagine what this thread would look like?

From what I can see, at this time enough has been said for a libel suit.
Accusing someone of being a thief repeatedly with no proof is trouble.

So Patrick, you a lawyer?

 

[Robert Dewey]

Yep. There is nothing in the law that forces one to pursue any copyright action. Here is a really good guide written by an attorney that explains your options if your images or videos are infringed.

Again, I repeat (and this isn't directed at you, Robert): there is a lot of armchair lawyerin' going on in this thread. Generally only stupid people take advice from the internet when it comes to legal matters. If you have questions about legal liability and someone is threatening an action against you, speak to a lawyer.

Yep, that's why I asked. With that said, I think the real idiot would be the one who takes the opinions in this thread as legal advice. Law isn't a black & white subject, as pretty much everything is open to interpretation. We filed suit against a company a few years ago, and most lawyers said "no way, we can't win this." The one lawyer that did take the case proved all of those other lawyers wrong. If everything was a "rule" in law, then none of those lawyers would have passed on the case.

Nothing wrong with people giving their thoughts, just as long as sheep don't blindly follow.

 

[Skip Talbot]

The mods have nothing to say about these accusations with no proof?

The moderators on Stormtrack are not here to settle disputes (end or move them off the forums yes) between members. That is up to the members themselves. The moderators certainly are not legal advisers either. We are here to simply maintain a civil flow of discussion on this forum. Although, its preferred that members start with a PM when handling matters such as these, this thread is here for the identification of copyright violations and their validity. I think some valuable things have been said in this discussion, and that there are lessons to be learned here. Please keep in mind the original purpose and rules that were laid down when this thread was created:

Thread Rules

Stormtrack promotes the lawful use of photographs and videos by its members. If a user discoveres copyright infringement of any member's work, we ask that you please PM that user directly. If the pirated work encompasses multiple users, you may either PM every user seperately, or make a copyright infringement report within this thread. In the case that copyright infringement is suspected, but the work is unidentified, a post may also be made. We ask that discussion in this thread be limited to identifying the copyrighted work.

Reports of copyright infringement should be limited to this thread. These type of discussions should not appear on the rest of ST.

The Stormtrack Mods

The moderators are watching this thread closely as I'm sure you're aware. I believe that posts from third parties are welcomed if they have something valuable to add to this debate. Posts that contain finger pointing without cause or name calling will be removed.