Photo ripoff?

Just call them and let them know. No need for lawyers or any of that crap.

Have to agree, sucks but at the same time cool. If they only asked and had your name = your bike in the add then all would be cool, that would be good enough for me. If you can get a freebie then better yet but the acknowledgment of your work (your bike) should be sufficient.

Lawyers are too expensive and for this case, your not going after millions of dollars here. For whatever money you could get out of this would only go to the lawyer so screw that...
Experience: Divorce lawyers, what a P.O.S. = high $$$ out of my pocket.

Question, since I'm not a lawyer (Thank the KZ GOD's) if we publish (insert) an image on any given website, does it become open domain, free to the public?

I'm kinda of thinking it does...

Your choice on what to do but a non angry letter to them with the possibility of adding your name to the bike in the add may get you some recognition, 15 minutes of fame. It they reply back with nasty, then make your decision.

OMR

Jump on them. Plain and simple it's theft of your property. The web gurus at my office said that Getty Images makes more money from fining people who don't pay usage rights than the actual sales of their photos. We've had to renegoiate with photographers because we wanted to use their photos on our company website. With photography, it's all about the usage rights.

Bill

Old Man Rock wrote:

Question, since I'm not a lawyer (Thank the KZ GOD's) if we publish (insert) an image on any given website, does it become open domain, free to the public?

If the image is marked as copyrighted - as most of my images usually are that is the first step in protecting yourself. If an images is not marked, then the "public" has not been warned. A real thief is one who steals an images and removes the mark.

When posting on a website, the site usually has terms and condition that are agreed to upon registering. They normally take claim to a license to use that image if you post it there. And.. you are voluntarily posting it...

In this case, since the image does not appear to have a copyright mark, then you need to determine where it was stolen from. Say it was taken from the image gallery here... the this site may have more rights to it then you, since the pages are marked Copyright © 1998 - 2007 - KZrider.com

Copyright, unlike a trademark, is an inherent right. This means that it is NOT required to register your work. I register all my images in bulk, usually quarterly, with the US Copyright office, and all that does it archive them somewhere that can be referred to. This is more common now, since digital images do not have as much proof as film. Again the key being the copyright mark on the image or the place where presented.

I have had MOST of the model I shoot use the images without providing me proper credit, even though they sign a release and distributed images come with an open use license, PROVIDING they give photo credits. Models never read the law, don't want to know the law and continue to believe that since the image is of them... they have rights to use it. NOT SO! I never go after a model. It would get me no where. If one becomes overly successful, then I may have a case.

supercharged wrote:
If the image is marked as copyrighted - as most of my images usually are that is the first step in protecting yourself.[/quote]

This is not accurate. A photo is automatically protected by copyright law as soon as it is taken. The taker of the photograph is the copyright holder. Anyone other than that legally needs "express written consent" to use the photo in any way whatsoever. If it is not marked, that does NOT give anyone fair game to use the image as they please!

Clutch, I stand corrected to the fact that the image does NOT require the copyright notice.

I'm old and I still use it, for obvious reasons, but this was a part of the old law, which was changed in the early 90s(?). It is still highly suggested, so that you put the world on notice. It also allows someone to possibly trace the owner for the purpose of asking permission.

Copyright law is rather complicated (and IMHO) copyright has been extended to absurd limits (life of the author plus 70 years, thanks to Disney).

First off, copyright violation is "not" theft, it's copyright violation. Theft is a criminal violation, violation of copyright is a civil matter. The RIAA and MPAA is trying to get this changed though, a bill has been introduced in Congress to create a IP (intellectual Property, an oxymoron) Czar and IP police at the Federal level to prosecute IP (Copyright, Patent, and Trademark) violations as criminal violations.

Second, copyright registration is optional, but it increase statutory damages (the amount you are entitled to be awarded if you win at trial).

Copyright is automatic when the material is stored in a fixed medium ( a song performance is not copyrighted till it's recorded).

Third, if you want to have some control over your work, such as prohibit commercial use, I suggest using the no commercial use version of the Creative Commons license.

Fourth, Fair Use is an affirmative defense to a copyright violation charge.

Fifth, much as I dislike the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), you can issue a DMCA Take Down Notice to their ISP to have their site taken down for copyright violation, but unless you have the $$$$$$$$ to follow through with litigation, it's of little more than nuisance value.

IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer), and I don't play one on TV, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, law is just another of my varied interests

Called today and sked for removal from both 750 and 1100 pages. Was not overly anemated about it... Just asked for it to be removed.

Well see.

It worked...you are no longer on their website:)

Mcdroid wrote:

It worked...you are no longer on their website:)

Hmmm, I guess you're no longer a Celebrity... I would have thought it was cool. Now it's just a story about how one time some company used an image of your bike without your permission.

steell wrote:

The RIAA and MPAA is trying to get this changed though, a bill has been introduced in Congress to create a IP (intellectual Property, an oxymoron) Czar and IP police at the Federal level to prosecute IP (Copyright, Patent, and Trademark) violations as criminal violations.

When will the idiots in Washington learn that calling some lackey position in the federal government a "czar" is patently absurd?

First we had a "drug czar" back in the eighties and a few more have followed over the years, each more annoying and irritating than the last. Beyond being absurd, the use of the term czar spits in the face of the US Constitution and our model representative republic of government.

Okay, I got off on a tangent there. :S

Glad to hear you were able to reach a conclusion.

supercharged wrote:

Clutch, I stand corrected to the fact that the image does NOT require the copyright notice.

I'm old and I still use it, for obvious reasons, but this was a part of the old law, which was changed in the early 90s(?). It is still highly suggested, so that you put the world on notice. It also allows someone to possibly trace the owner for the purpose of asking permission.

Yes that sounds about right as far as the year. The only reason I knew that is because I used to work for Ritz Camera and they made sure that we knew about that. It is recommended to add a notice somewhere on it, though if you have the original negative or can prove in some way that you took the picture, the offending party will not have a leg to stand on.