Internet “entrepreneur” shocked that copyright owner sued him for stealing their work
Oct 19, 2017
John Aldred
John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.
Share:
This is one of those stories you couldn’t make up if you tried. Most people, especially content creators, such as those with YouTube followings of 60K+ people know that much of the Internet is copyrighted. That just because an image appears in a Google Images search result does not mean that it’s free to use. It’s just plain common sense. At least, one would think so.
But YouTuber and Internet “entrepreneur” (that word is so overused these days), Dan Dasilva had to learn this the hard way. After stealing a photographer’s work, the photographer, the legal copyright owner, sued him and won. Dan, though, seems to believe he’s the victim n all this. The victim of a “malicious” photographer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBNGY2ZgMro
Most people, when they do something like this, get called out on it, and prosecuted, they may post a similar video. Warning people about the dangers of infringing copyright and why it’s not a great idea. Dan, on the other hand, chose to warn his viewers about the “malicious” photographers.
[for some of our commentary on the case, check this post out]
Yes, that’s right, you know the types. They exist all around us. The ones who’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars on gear. Who’ve spent years learning and developing their craft. Those who try to profit from their work and enforce the rights they have to their own intellectual property. Those bastards.
I’m kidding, obviously, that pretty much describes every photographer out there trying to run a legitimate business.
Dan definitely doesn’t see it that way, though. He thinks that all we do is create images, copyright them, upload them to the Internet, and then wait to sue people. As if we’re forcing them to steal our work and waiting to punish them when they do. I really want to write “lol” here, because the whole idea of that really does make me laugh out loud.
To put it into context, the reason I was sued was because I used a picture that I found on Google Images. Now, I should have known better, yes, in my position I should know better. But, again, I never really thought that there are malicious people out there that […] maliciously put pictures on the Internet.
[People] that copyright pictures that they take and what they do is they’ll get like a copyright on it, and they’ll put it out on the Internet, and it’s freely available on the Internet […] and they literally, some people specifically do this as a job.
Imagine that, photographers who understand that their work has value. Who then copyright it to give them some legal recourse when people steal their work. And then pursue those who steal said work.
I still love that he thinks we shoot images to upload to the Internet just so we can sue people for stealing them. That we have teams of people just waiting to pounce. That he actually calls it a “business model”.
He also seems to not understand that images don’t actually need to be registered in order to have copyright protection. Sure, registration allows you to claim damages and whatnot, but you still own the copyright the instant you create the image. In other countries, there isn’t even a registration mechanism, and you get all the rights (including damages) regardless.
So, it’s not much of a surprise then that he also doesn’t know that images are copyrighted even if there’s no actual copyright statement accompanying the image.
Each penalty comes with up to $150,000 fine. So, for every image that I used, that he owned […] I would potentially be sued for $150,000 if it were to go to court
And go to court it did. Dasilva reached a settlement with the photographer for $27,000 in June. He says he also paid around $10,000 in legal fees. That’s $37,000 in total. An expensive lesson to learn. If not for the fact that he doesn’t really seem to have learned a thing.
He certainly didn’t listen to his lawyer, because he was also told that he shouldn’t post this video online. Yet, lucky for us, because I needed some good entertainment this evening, he did.
To anybody else out there who thinks like Dan. Here’s a big tip, although it really shouldn’t need to be said. Stop stealing other peoples work and you won’t get sued for copyright infringement.
[via Reddit]
John Aldred
John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.
Related Posts
Internet-connected camera owner panics after it starts following and talking to her
What Photographers Need To Know About Nike Being Sued For Stealing The Air Jordan Logo
The owner of famous Grumpy Cat awarded over $700,000 in a copyright infringement lawsuit
How a Band Responded in the Most Immature Manner Possible After Stealing a Photographer’s Work
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
380 responses to “Internet “entrepreneur” shocked that copyright owner sued him for stealing their work”
That’s oddly satisfying.
In the words of the great Bugs Bunny…What a maroon
What a buffoon.
????? Just because it’s on the internet doesn’t mean it’s free. Think before you take what’s not yours.
And he has the nerve to attack and doxx the copyright holder.
What a bell end.
“malicious people posting pictures”
Right? I hope he gets sued again for defamation.
They forced him to steal :))
Sue his arse
He has one braincell and it’s flickering.
What an asshole…
You’re a fucking idiot
Always heard the expression “Stupid is as Stupid does.” Now I understand it.
This guy is unbelievable. The only thing anyone can learn from him is how NOT to handle copy written material. So any photographer that does what they SHOULD do, which is file a proper electronic copyright of their images with the US Copyright Office before posting them, is doing it solely with malicious, predatory intent to sue potential infringers? SMH… I bet his argument for getting a speeding ticket is why do they make cars that go over the speed limit? It’s a malicious and predatory conspiracy between the car manufactures and law enforcement to trap innocent drivers into huge fines and traffic school.
I am from a country where copyright is implied at creation, so I don’t know this… But do you American photograph really submit all your files to the copyright office ? Isn’t it long/difficult?
Copyright is granted to the creator at the moment of creation in the US. The basics are this. Every photograph, piece of artwork, music, video, etc is copyrighted content by the creator automatically, with some exceptions. Unregistered work while copyrighted can only be granted actual damages for infringement. Registered work with the US Copyright office can be granted statutory damages up to $150k. The problem is the registering of copyrighted material is a pain, costs $55 each time you register work, and is a process a lot of photographers don’t want to bother with or know nothing about.
Thanks for the info !
Not difficult at all. I’ve registered appx 300,000 images thru the decades. Do it in bulk and it cost $55. Registration before an image is published and infringement occurs allows you to collect damages and legal fees. You can not file a lawsuit in court unless the image has been registered.
You have a copyright upon creation but cannot file in Federal court without the registration.
That is exactly what I already stated above. I’ve done close to 1000 copyright infringement cases in the past few years and have registered more than 300,000 images.
What exactly happens when you do a copyright infringement case? Does the person immediately get sued, or he still has a chance to take down the image from the website/platform? And how do you check if people copyrighted your image ? With Reverse Image search tools like Tineye, and Google Image Reverse Search?
A good lawyer usually negotiates a settlement prior to a court case. The infringer really needs a lawyer to work on his behalf because if it does go to court, an infringer can be sued for $150,000 for damages and have to pay all legal costs for both sides.. An infringer has already infringed and taking down an image after being caught is like letting a shoplifter go scott free. It doesn’t work like that. The photo has to removed and payment has to be made. An infringers lawyer can pay the US Copyright office for a search of the infringed image. That takes awhile though. You can prove the image is your by retaining the raw files and having other similar originals the infringer can view but it’s up to them to prove they have a valid license to use it.
Thanks for the information!
What happens if I were to post my pictures or post cards dating back well over 50 years in Canada. Does the US rules apply in any way? Can they copy them in violation of American Law?
I’m not a lawyer so I couldn’t give a meaningful answer for anything I have not experienced in my photo career. Personally, I’d never touch any work that was not my own. I suggest for that you get a consultation from a well versed copyright lawyer.
I am a member of Legalshield, I will give them a call. Thanks.
Be careful using Legalshield for anything copyrighted related. They do not have specialist intellectual property attorneys there. It’s general law. My lawyers and I have received responses from infringers that had Legalshield accounts and the responses were so uninformed they didn’t even make sense. You need a copyright lawyer/intellectual. Not general, not patent or trademark specialist.
In Canada Legal shield is set up with one of the oldest law firms in Canada. Unlike the US they do not represent people in court. I will keep your comments in mind. Thanks.
I’ve done more than 1000 cases since 1980. This I know. You can’t file in court without the registration, collect for damages or have your attorney fees paid. I’ve already said this in a thread before. Owning your copyright form the time you press the shutter is a given but if you can’t collect because you didn’t register, you’ve screwed yourself.
That is not true.
It’s just simpler to prove. There is no ‘you must register’ in the law.
What part did I saw ‘you must register’ YOU MUST REGISTER your images to be able to file a copyright suit in Federal Court in the USA. You can not file unless the image has been registered. I’ve been protecting my copyright since 1980 and have been thru the process thousands of times and work with the best lawyers in the biz to protect my images.
No, you don’t have it right. You must register to be able to file an infringement suit in court. See Linda’s response. She knows her stuff on this.
You can register in batches for that $55.
@Linda, Nico – what is the best way you find to batch register images to the (C) office? Do you send them a DVD? Do you have to send them full size originals or 1 megapixel JPEGS will do?
thanks a lot for the information provided and anything further.
You upload everything online. No DVD’s, that’s so 1990s. Never send full size originals.They need to be large enough so if you had to go to court, they can be viewed as evidence. Depending on how many I’m uploading because the system times out after a period of time, I usually keep my images appx 7-8 inches on the long side and appx 150 dpi saved at a bit more than 50% quality.
Thanks for the info! Much appreciated.
I don’t know how it is where I live, but we can pretend its the exact same for the sake of argument. I’m a poor artist, what would i do if I can’t pay registration fees? not upload my work? Uploading for me is like advertising. People see I’m active, then they wanna buy my art. That registration fee I could currently pay half a registration fee per month, I think. Haha.
Usually when my art have been stolen before, it’s been reuploaded to DeviantART or roleplaying websites. Usually calling up an admin there to have it taken down has worked. So I haven’t really gotten any big problem before, really. Though if someone would take my drawings without permission to sell as merch, or use as tattoos, etc, then I might have to sue.
55.00 to load batches of a few hundred. What’s the problem?
Oh!! I thought it was per image, haha. Then it sounds more afforable, absolutely!
You can not afford to not protect your work and not register your copyright. It’s $55 and you can register in bulk That’s not just for one image but thousands as long as they have not been previously published. If previously published, go to the copyright office site so you know how to file that form correctly. How much are they buying your art for? My last infringement collection netted me $8000.00 which is a small amount for a smaller use.
I am a very small artist, so my art don’t go for much currently. All of my drawings and paintings have been already published. The price also very much depends on what people need me to paint, but since most of my time goes to other types of work, my art is just a “hobby” that earns me a bit of pocket change. Normal paintings can range from 100-600 USD (per image), depending if its a speedpaint or fully rendered something. But I also do smaller things such as profile pictures, post cards and whatnot for less.
But either way, for my costumers and my own sake, being able to keep the stuff safe that they order from me would be pretty great.
Linda has given good info. I highly recommend that artists do plan on doing bulk registration do it with the help of an experienced copyright lawyer. At least the first time, so they understand all of the fine points of the rules, which are a little different for art (paintings, etc) than photography. The copyright office won’t necessarily recognize an error or have your back, if you get something wrong, and the infringer’s lawyer will challenge the validity of the registration if there is even the tiniest error. A big mistake I see in forums all the time is assuming that the rules are the same for photos as for art. Another one is confusion over the legal meaning of “published,” or thinking you can mix published works in a group registration of art.
As to the dork that stole images and was shocked he got sued, wow! How thick does one’s skull have to be for them not to learn a thing after that expensive lesson?! And he’s teaching others this model? SMH
Thanks CSC. If you call the copyright with any copyright related questions they can’t and will not give advice. Their job is strictly to answer questions about getting your content uploaded and registered. It would be nice if they would change things and make it so cut and dried easy and to the benefit of the creator. I’m not a fan of the ‘previously published’ registration system but it’s not likely they will change that in our favor.
Not difficult but it can take a very long time. And one thing about statutory damages (mentioned below by JasonR) it seems to me that the law is still unsettled as to whether the damages apply to each image or to the work as a whole. As with all cases, much is contingent on the presiding judge who may or or may not be sympathetic and may decide to award something significantly less than the statutory limit. With that said, the mere threat of those damages can be a very big hammer to motivate companies to settle for something reasonable.
Not difficult and it does take time, but you can register a whole lot of small versions of your photos for the one fee
christopherboffoli is right on-point: The copyright registration process is not difficult; however, it can take time to complete accurately(!) if you, like me, register 1000+ of un-published images in a $55 eCO Standard Application. I’ve timely registered virtually every single one of my images/videos since 1997.
christopherboffoli wrote, “…it seems to me that the law is still unsettled as to whether the damages apply to each image or to the work as a whole.”
The US Copyright Office is on the record that to “group-register” many images in one eCO Standard Application, you need to include a “content title” for each image you’re registering—this helps make your application “most bulletproof” (Copyright Office’s words, not mine) and help extend the maximum statutory
damages to each caption image vs. just one award for the entire work. You’re Certificate of Registration will list each of your content title (file name/image description); having a separate title for each work is the main issue.
So, if I’m registering 1254 un-published images, I’ll need to include 1254 titles (titles could be the image file number). However, by including a robust keyworded title, you’re enabling people to find you (assuming your image can’t be traced back to you through an Internet search) via the Copyright Office’s database when your Copyright Management Information (watermarks, metadata, file name, etc.) was inadvertently not included or willfully removed, making your images orphaned. The US Copyright Office’s database is not visually searchable; you can only use text (keywords, titles) to find images and other creative works.
christopherboffoli wrote, “With that said, the mere threat of those damages can be a very big hammer to motivate companies to settle for something reasonable.”
This is so true. Having a timely registered copyright gives your copyright litigator leverage(!) to push/force the alleged infringer to (quickly) settle out of court vs. proceeding to trial (assuming the infringed work is not within the scope of Fair Use). If the infringer elects not to settle and the plaintiff/photographer prevails at trial, s/he can pursue $750 to $30K for the infringement; if the infringement was willful, the statutory money damages can rise from $30K to $150K. The losing defendant/infringer is also liable to pay the plaintiff’s/photographer’s attorney fees and costs (statutory money damages + attorney fees are at the court’s discretion). It is not unusual for attorney fees to far, far exceed any statutory money damages the plaintiff receives for the infringement.
So, the reason why you timely register your creative works is to push infringers to settle quickly (and for attorney fees post-trial).
Christopher, I see that you have six visual arts works registered. It’s recommended that you include more detailed text description in your Application Title (Full Title). Re: VAu001106484, your “Disparity Series” title is not sufficient in my book (disparity series of what?). Just a friendly suggestion.
I haven’t dealt with much IP, and when I did it was trademark, not copyright. I’m not sure how the law is written. Many of the laws apply to each image or each instance of use. The legal question becomes what is an instance of use. But, as I said, I haven’t done copyright law and it’s been 15 years since I litigated in trademark.
I think you mean “copyrighted” material. While copywriting is also subject to copyright, this topic is about photos.
Betcha he goes “bro” a lot.
I invite him to browse my website and see if there’s any photos he’d like to use without inquiring about licensing.
oh nice, so you steal someone else work and they complain. makes sense…not
Every view of the video of him complaining gets him some money from YouTube for another view.
There is no need for shame when there is money to be made.
Which is why I didn’t bother clicking on the video, but this article is doing nothing but help the criminal.
Until you reach the last period of your life and wonder what the hell you were thinking placing dollars above all else
I have an amazing business idea! Take this stupid video, plaster “lol” stickers on it, upload to youtube, and make money!
Nothing wrong here, right?
Yeah, but when you close the video after a few seconds it totally tanks his (much more important) engagement metrics.
I use an adblocker, so hes not getting my money! *evil laughter*
In this day and age where burglars sue homeowners for injuring themselves while they’re breaking into a house – I’m not surprised.
And now the guy can come after him for libel and/slander, and possibly breaking the terms of the settlement (if there was a confidentiality clause, which is normal).
He speaks like the president.
When he rolled his shirt sleeves up I just knew he was in the wrong and was going to claim to be a victim. He even turned of his comments on his vid and has a follow up video of the same verbal garbage. I hope every creator he stole from finds him and sues him.
The “wearing a cap indoors” was the first clue to his fuckwittery.
What a knob!!!
What’s even more of a symptom of the junk content that a lot of people like this put out just so they can call themselves “Youtubers” is that they’ll post videos about anything just so they can get views and subscriptions. And like I gathered from other shining examples is that there are other morally decrepit people who actually enjoy this kind of garbage. That’s another thing to wrap your mind around.
We live in the ‘me’ generation. Likes and view are equated with intelligence and success.
Actually, as an artist very active on Instagram, it’s not about “me” for a lot of us, we’ve created digital communities where our interests and specialties are appreciated. We build each other up, take care of each other in rough times, and share our thoughts and opinions about matters that affect our community just like neighbors do. Your unwillingness to understand and quickness to dismiss something because you didn’t try to see it from the perspective of someone actually participating is the real divide between people.
Edit: responding to Brian
The “me” generation or lack thereof isn’t really the issue here. I just look at it as a guy who didn’t know or care to know what he was doing and was still an imbecile when they taught him otherwise. Ego has nothing to do with stupidity, which seems to be abundant with this particular individual.
Sadly, he is not an exception, people have no respect for artwork they find on google, I’ve been trying to change this situation with the people around me, but it’s an uphill battle that may never be won…
“There are people who maliciously put their photos on the Internet” ???
What a clown :))))))
Serve him right….
Dumb ass he should have used a stock photo company it would have been cheaper. Nothing is free in this world. Somebody going to get payed.
The worst part is this moron said in the video that in spite of him losing upwards of $50,000 in this matter he is still going to Google and stealing images! SMH
I find it shocking that the comments in YouTube are disabled… I don’t leave comments often… But that would have been a (polite and mesured) blast ;-)
For those wanting to watch the video but wanting to encourage this fellow… The “don’t like” button works perfectly.
Heh, funny that. I would hazard a guess there was lots of discussion had about this person’s intelligence and integrity…. or rather, the complete lack thereof.
Probably it’s because of his not so stellar reputation. He don’t want ex students of his webinars complaining on his videos comments. Dan Dasilva is the new version of “no money down” scams, except on the internet.
I got my comment in to him!
“Wah! Wah! Wah! Wahhhhhhhh!”
LOL
It is almost staggering how dense this fellow is! How can he even begin to think of himself as a victim?! He perpetrated the offense!
On Google images: I still see, though, a lot of sources listed as ‘Google’. I don’t understand that! A page full of beautiful photos is attractive! But, what you did not make, yourself, obviously, entails another person. And, that other person owns those image(s)! This is not rocket science! SMH, too! Should I advise these people who use Google as a source? Or, mind my own business?
Thanks!
Su
In my experience people only disable comments when the response is going to be overwhelmingly negative.
It was the first time in his YouTube career that his comments section blew up this negatively. Was one of the first few to comment as I’d previously followed him, but the Reddit thread just blew things up.
Much later after releasing another video, still playing the victim that he disabled the comments on the original video.
It was pretty stupid of him, overall.
my thoughts exactly~ ;)
Yea, Dan hasn’t learned his lesson. I agree with John that Dan thinks that he is the “victim” from his comments in the video: “The people out there in the world.”, “Malicious people”
There are various versions of Creative Commons, so one should pay attention to how images can be used.
I work in the computer technology industry and there is a class of lawyers called “patent trolls” where they buy obscure, ambiguous patents and warehouse them waiting to sue mega-billion corporations. They typically choose a court in Texas known for its leniency in patent law to sue. I don’t have the time to provide specific cases, but search arstechnica.com for “patent trolls”. One picked the wrong company to sue. The company fought back and won a judgement and the patent trolls dropped their lawsuit, but the company fought to recover their expenses and won again.
“My lawyer told me not to make this video…..”
Yeah, that sounds a bit slanderous. He better put his attorney on retainer…
I still don’t have a clue what this guy did with the image to warrant $150,000 law suit. I listen to his video and if he thinks he was treated unfairly well, that’s his opinion. Are there Litigious people out there with frivolous lawsuits? Absolutely. Some are photographers. Is this photographer one of them? Don’t know.
He claims -and it sounds bizarre if not practically impossible- that he can be sued for even bringing it up…if true, why sue him for trying to warn others? I know that settlements amount should stay private so he should have not mention the amount agreed.
I am not sure how it works in the US but I believe in Canada you first have to send a Cease and desist letter before suing. However, did he sell the photo and made money from it?
Did he received a warning and chose not to listen? If he did then he was foolish for not taking down the photo.
I’m an American photographer who has successfully motivated Canadian companies to pay me a settlement for their commercial exploitation of my copyrighted photographs. No cease and desist letter was involved.
That’s because you are American and you owned the copyright and you are not the perpetrator. If the shoe was on the other foot, and you were the perpetrator who exploited a Canadian’s copyright, the Canadian would send you a cease and desist as it comes under Canadian law. Yours is under American law so does not involve cease and desist.
For a registered photo, $150,000 is the amount allowed by federal law (plus attorney fees). It isn’t always the amount received. If a watermark is removed from a photo or a copyright statement is removed from a video, it becomes a willful offense and the fine goes even higher. The ability to pay is another issue and assets can come into play.
It was important for him to start off by pushing up his sleeve so we could see his tattoo.
The Fair Use Act 107 does not always protect you. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Fair use is an expensive defence.
This guy will be resued,
Douche
I can’t help but notice that he disabled the comments for this video, probably because people were calling him names. People have this as a job – yes, people who are photographers, that is their job. The rest of his theory? No.
Wow, this guy is a special kid of stupid, like Trump stupid. People like this believe they have the right to do whatever they want, to whomever they want and are always in the right.
Take one of his videos and post as your own and watch the giant baby hissy fit. The kicker will be he will never,… NEVER, see the correlation.
“Gah, dirty Youtubers post videos on the interweb, just so they can sue people. GAH!”
No, more like Hillary stupid. Do wrong, get caught, blame others, take no personal responsibility, and then go on a public sympathy “I’m the victim” tour. I’m sure if he writes a book about it, you’ll be first in line to have it signed.
Go fuck yourself, fucking American gene-pool scum will cause the end of the world…
Yes, but our gene pool is a mixture of EVERY other countries..so if we are gene-pool scum it’s only that our genes came for a pool of scum to start with. :) *snap*
lol…that’s the weakest, lamest “snap” I’ve ever seen!
Good lord, you just explained trump to the T. Do Wrong, get caught, blame others, take no personal responsibility and claim to be a victim? Sounds JUST LIKE TRUMP. If they’re all like this, why even differentiate between them?
First, Trump is far from stupid. Arrogant, big mouthed, narcissistic, yes, but you don’t get to be as rich as him and become President with NO political background by being stupid. That’s why he’s dangerous…people constantly underestimate him and his agenda.
When I don’t personally know someone I don’t call them either smart or stupid. But I trust Tillerson’s opinion, and combined with the fact he doesn’t read, and he watches hour upon hour of cable news (which could rot the brain of a Mensa member), I have to say the man probably isn’t too swift.
“What’s up everybody! Oh hang on, I need to roll up my sleeve to show of my SICK tat first”
Another ass.
He REALLY should have listened to his lawyer and not made this video. Not a bright guy. Steals images, gets sued, get excellent advice from expensive, educated, lawyer, chooses to ignore said advice and digs hole deeper by making idiotic video in which he ADMITS WRONGDOING AND ADMITS HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. Winner of the inaugural “Darwin award for Business”. Plus the indoor cap and rolling up of sleeves is a dead giveaway that he is about to say something stupid.
Just before the 6 minute mark he keeps mentioning that he can’t say the guys name but its all public record so if people want to find out who sued him…its up to their discretion.. It certainly sounds a little DOXY to me.
Happened to me… like a lot of photographers having your work stolen is not pleasant and is hard to fight as well. But having such a moron (sorry but he is) saying that it is almost OK to do that is completely disgusting. And as someone pointed out, as we can’t comment on the video, feel free to dislike his viedo or better tweet him @DanDasilvaaa … #DanTheEdiot
He’s not to bright for an “internet entrepreneur”. You would think someone whos main job is Youtube videos, would know better. But not him. I’m not a Dan Fan, but I do have a suggestion. Get a fidget spinner, it’s tough watching your video, you move around like a kid who didn’t take his Ritalin.
What a dick. Don’t watch his vids. He’ll get paid.
Dare I utter the word ‘millennial’ ?
The entire generation is utterly fubarred
Gosh.
Was fun watching that.
He is not one of the sharpest tools in the shed.
“I’m still doing it” dude…. Dude! He admitted to still stealing images on his video and that the lawsuit isn’t going to stop him from doing it again.
10 people in a line are driving over the speed limit. Only one gets pulled over. That person complains that they have to pay a ticket because everyone else was speeding too. That is this kid in a nutshell.
“Lawyer papers” ?
I’m a malicious photographer and I stare here in the web just fishing these rich guys
Thank God for morons like this.
This seems like an open and shut case for most photographers until you dig deeper to find out the photographer suing really does trap people for a living by loading his photos on Creative Commons site too with a “free for commercial use” disclaimer but only to sue you after if you do.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/beware-of-photographer-nicholas-(nick)-youngson-of-nyphotographic-com/
How do you know that is the person who sued him?
Try googling both names, is all there.
Why would you spread things that you may have read during your internet “research” that may be slanderous and intrue? That doesn’t seem too bright.
It is not as clear as it seems, just go more research on the guy.
Poor kid is thick.
I almost pity the boy. He isn’t even aware how ignorant and stupid he is. And this ‘enterpreneur’ is ‘teaching’ other people on YouTube.
Beggars belief.
Don’t pity him; he’s wilfully blind and arrogant. He doesn’t see that it’s his denial that is feeding the blowback.
The guy is a loser if he thinks he’s the victim, more if he insists that google search allows him the right to freely use commercially images he finds then he’s just plain stupid!
He should buy a camera and shoot his own images. Or at the very least, contact the photographer and seek permission to use the image.
You got what you deserved, dont steal the work of others and you wont get sued. I cant belive the winging and wining that went on here for a wrong he clearly did.
As a photographer I say: So sad, watch him cry, so salty, so good!!
he learned nothing!
#foreverthevictim
LOL.. There is ONE point he makes that is a good point, the rest, well, he is not wise AT ALL. There are companies, photographers, etc, they really do exactly what he says: Copyright baiting. This is very common, more then most people think AND companies do this with more then just copyright. patents are the same way, trademarks, etc. Where companies patent “inventions, designs, etc” and just SIT on the patents and wait for a infringement. I am not going to get into the details of a certain case (not this man’s) but there was another case where a photographer “PLANTED” his copyright work somewhere else, and had, under the images that they were free for use.. He then sued dozens of companies and people, and claimed someone else posted those images on that site that said they were free for use.. problem was, they traced his IP back to his work/home and case was tossed.
Sure there are unethical people trying to make money off the rampant theft of IP on the internet. Cops have been caught taking advantage of the law to make money from criminals. And like the case you highligjted most are caught.
But pointing to a couple cases of baiting schemes does not in any way negate the fact that these companies exist because artists need them to go after those who steal their property.
How about embedded images from Twitter/Instagram? User who post embedded code on its page must pay for these images?
People who create images own them. Pretty simple, huh?
Very simple, but doesn’t answer the question.
I assume it’s fine to Tweet or otherwise share a link, since that’s just directing someone to a website. Since Twitter embeds the images automatically, that implies it’s fine to embed/”hotlink” images from the creator’s website. The creator can easily disable hotlinking or even remove the image, at their discretion.
I assume it’s *not* okay to reupload such an image. That takes control away from the content owner, and they can probably sue for that if necessary.
Sorry, I don’t understand you. Did I steal your image, when I put in my blog some embedded code from Twitter or Instagram with your image?
Awwww Poor thing.
Wonder what his take would be regarding stealing something from Walmart and having them sue him. Guessing he would say that they have all of that stuff on the shelves as a business model to bait shoplifters. LOL
So, I went into this shop, saw something I liked and just took it. You know what? There wasn’t any sign I could see that said I couldn’t do that. What did I do wrong? You know my friends, there are malicious people out there purposely putting things within my reach that I want with the sole intention of suing me when I reach out and take it. I’m a victim! wah! wah! wah!
Their whole business model is leaving things our and waiting for poor innocent folks to steal, just so they can selfishly sue!
its not like stealing from a shop what so ever.
It’s exactly like stealing from a shop
no its not. if you steal from a shop you are taking the product. he is just copying it. its copying. not theft. if you are going to condone violence against people you shouldnt be calling yourself an artist. find a physical product to invent or a service to offer.
So what the fuck is piracy if it isn’t theft? They are just copying it right? I.e., taking the product without paying the creators. No big deal.
I guess there really are a lot of stupid people out there…
We get it, you steal movies and videogames and like to justify it online. This is not the same. This dude didnt steal images to hang in his living room, he stole them to make money in his shop.
yes, there are differences between taking a physical thing from a store and pirating an image. The end result is the same… the person who owned it can sue you.
Copying is stealing. Only thieves believe otherwise.
“he is just copying it.” And then using it for his own benefit, and not the benefit of the person who created the work.
the internet is supposed to be a free place. ip law was never the intention on the net and it wont last much longer anyway with things like crypto.
Yeah, because the Internet is full of creative types who are going to spend years honing their particular craft, and days or weeks producing a particular piece of art, only to make it available to you for free so you can sell it.
im just being honest. the internet is embracing decentralised technology that will make it harder or impossible to track such things. art isnt the right way to make money online.
Still wrong.
Actually Gary, it’s doing the opposite. The art Industy is already utilising Blockchain to track the authentication of artwork to tackle fraud https://www.ft.com/content/a8ab14c0-61a5-11e7-8814-0ac7eb84e5f1
That was the internet of old. AI is going to ruin alot of online business selling counterfeits and stealing art…
That doesn’t mean that the stuff you get off the internet is free. I don’t recall Amazon giving stuff away for free simply because you saw it on the internet. You, Gary, are nothing but a cheap crook looking for a score.
you dont know me at all. i am actually in data protection but i like technical solutions not violence. “dont tread to me” but you tread on other people. -faker
So expecting people to NOT be thieves is “treading” on them. Nutjob you are.
Wrong, we will be able to enforce the rights of artists to their fruits of their labor even more. The whole point of crypto is to insure that the owner of something is actually that person, not some greedy corporation or idiot thief. If you think crypto is about stealing, you understand even less than you seem to by all your idiotic comments. I suspect you are simply a troll.
Or his I.D. is an alias for Dan daSilva?
rubbish, crypto doesnt protect pixels on a screen from copying and the main people involved tend to agree with me that IP law is a policy and not real common law. just because people copy pixels or binary code doesnt mean an artist cant make money from art. giving away art for free online and then selling physical paintings in art gallerys or doing concerts is a good business model. people could equally say that art isnt a commodity and shouldnt be monitised. it is just opinion. not a fact.
by copying something you are doing a service and making it more available to humanity. without taking anything from the artist. theft is when you deprive somebody of something and leave them without it at all. for example stealing bread from a shop.
Gary, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Your opinion that other people’s hard work and talent is a “service” for YOU is entitled and ignorant. I’m a professional illustrator who licenses my images to crafters for use in their homemade cards. People take my images, upload them digitally to Pinterest to be shared with people who have not purchased a license. My income drops further EVERY YEAR because my product is shared for free, exponentially, — all over the world The same thing is happening to illustrators who create coloring books. People scan the books in, and upload them to Pinterest, and no one needs to buy them any more. Try going onto Pinterest and searching “free coloring pages” – nearly every one of those images you see has been taken – STOLEN from the artist without permission or payment. Now imagine if people were allowed to take/steal bread from all the bakeries, and there was a huge warehouse where all this stolen bread was free for the taking. What would happen to your local bakeries?
We could go a step further and imagine that this warehouse was magical and could then duplicate the bread and place it in other magical warehouses all over the world that could then duplicate that bread. (Like the duplication that happens each time a digital image is shared.) That would put a lot of bakeries out of business.
IP is as valid a property as any other. IP creators and their works do not exist for your free pleasure.
You’ll be in for a rude awakening when Net Neutrality is killed. It is theft because he obtained the picture that was not available for monetary use, he then used the picture not for his own use, but for monetary use. So but for the fact that his website was displaying these images that he didn’t make or compensate anyone for, his site wouldn’t make the money that he is not paying royalties with. None of that matters to someone like you, you have the same thought process as the op. “It’s someone elses fault they left something desirable out within my reach” That’s what I see. “IP Law was never the intention on the net” suggests to me you believe all copyright laws online are complete bullshit and this doesn’t apply. Once again we have an individual that has never produced anything of his own so he sees no problem with stealing others work to benefit from while not offering any compensation for the use.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the value of items on the internet. It only is concerned with what the bandwidth providers can charge and how they control how bytes are sent through the pipes. When it’s killed, the internet providers will be able to control how much data you can access and from where you can get it.
The internet may be free, but content displayed on it isn’t.
It’s free to enter a shop, but you have to pay for the goods if you want to use them, dumb-ass.
OMG, are you for real?? Do you really believe what you are saying? I bet you think musicians spend $10s of thousands recording music so they can give it away. What a joke
Armies spend a lot of money to kill people. Doesnt make instigating violence OK.
stealing is stealing
If he’s making a profit from using something for which he’s not paying a fee – and should be – then it IS theft…. by means of breach of copyright.
It’s a shame the penalty wasn’t higher.
Copyright infringement is a CIVIL offence. Theft is a CRIMINAL offence. It’s not like stealing from a shop because the police won’t come and arrest you for it. This is why this entire article is about suing someone for infringement/piracy and not having them arrested.
So, sure, keep the rhetoric up because it is loss of potential earnings, but don’t misrepresent the laws involved; you’re not helping.
Wrong: http://info.legalzoom.com/copyright-laws-enforced-22044.html
Uh, bucko, you might want to read 18 U.S. Code § 2319 – Criminal infringement of a copyright:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319
Nope
Are you stupid? You fucking kids think photographs magically appear? It’s created and sold. It’s a product. That product was stolen.
Not that I support copyright infringement – at all – but, No. Making a copy of a photograph is NOT like stealing groceries.
If you really can’t comprehend the difference between a) literally taking a unique, physical product that will actually be absent, after it is taken, and b) making a copy, which does not disturb the original (or any OTHER copies), then you don’t understand a very basic element of copyright and “intellectual property” vs. physical property. You are likely to get into some trouble trying to apply these concepts, at some point.
Violations of a) physical property rights and b) intellectual property rights are necessarily understood differently and the laws and rights that apply to them are necessarily different.
Than what is software. You buy it online and receive a copy. It is a product. Physically, it exists as electrons, precisely arranged by a coder and a company that made copies of it. A factory makes copies of a car. MS makes copies of Word. You pirate a photo, software or music, you stole their arrangement.
Where to even begin…
“Than what is software. You buy it online and receive a copy. It is a
product. Physically, it exists as electrons, precisely arranged by a
coder and a company that made copies of it.”
What part of you, yourself, using the word “copy,” there, TWICE, do you need further help with?
When you “buy” software (and nobody really “buys” software anymore – check the terms of your EULA…) you do NOT take the one and only version of the software. You DON’T go to the company, take the machine code out of their servers and leave with it. they give you….
….wait for it….
A COPY!!!
And that’s why software is protected by COPYRIGHT, and not by general physical property and theft laws.
Get it?
“A factory makes copies of a
car. MS makes copies of Word.”
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha….
hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
You REALLY cannot see ANY difference between a) hundreds of individual cars rolling off of an assembly line, each one, actually driving away and b) someone making a copy of a photograph that exists on a Google server, and which NEVER leaves that Google server, during and after it being copied?!?!?!?!
Really…
You REALLY can not comprehend the distinction, there????
“You pirate a photo, software or music, you
stole their arrangement.”
No. You MADE A COPY.
The ORIGINAL is STILL RIGHT WHERE IT ALWAYS WAS. It hasn’t been “stolen” in the sense that a car or groceries can be “stolen.”
Seriously. This isn’t that hard, folks. It just isn’t.
Calm down. Resist the reflex to just blurt out an argument, and actually THINK about it.
I love you, Lance. It amazes me that no matter how clear and concise your explanation is, they simply refuse to understand. While I get their idea that the “copiers” are stealing something they did not pay for in the sense that the author or owner of the software did not get their money for the specific copy that was downloaded, it is definitely not the same as stealing a car and there is no correlation between the two examples at all. But this is so much fun to read.
Yeah. It’s as if simply saying: “Folks, we deal in copyright. You should be aware that copyright protection is a bit different than other property rights that apply to tangible goods” somehow gets distorted and misinterpreted into having said: “No! You’re WRONG! Someone using a copy of your photograph doesn’t hurt you, AT ALL!!!!”
Bizarre.
We have copyright protection precisely because we recognize that, while intangible and/or easily replicable creative expressions DO have value and DO need to be protected, they necessarily have to be considered quite differently than conventional, tangible, physical goods.
The old “It’s the EXACT SAME THING as stealing a car!” argument is so misguided, uneducated and tired. I am truly amazed, and also saddened, by how many people who make their livelihoods with IP still trot it out – and argue it.
That’s right Lance. Just keep beating your head against a brick wall. Never mind that the brick wall happens to be the actual law. You apparently believe that you understand copyright law, and yet you immediately believed another ignorant person who said it’s only handled in civil court. (It isn’t – it doesn’t take much for it to be enforced as a felony charge.) Go read about it and educate yourself. No matter how logical you *think* you are being, you happen to be actually, in reality, quite wrong. By the way your certitude, and screaming at people, isn’t helping you to look any smarter either. One day you will sneak back here and delete these comments, because you will realize how misinformed and ridiculous you sounded.
*sigh*
Thank you, SO much, Chickenart, for letting me know about all you understand about the law, which I do not.
No, I didn’t “immediately believe” that copyright infringement – as we are discussing it, here – is only a civil court matter. I simply referred to someone else’s comment, out of expediency. I know it is.
Yes, I am aware that, in very specific instances – which, again, are NOT what we are talking about here – can be a misdemeanor or a felony. Unlike you, however, I know it is entirely incorrect to say that “it doesn’t take much for it to be enforced as a felony charge.” I know that for a felony charge for copyright infringement to hold, many, very specific conditions – conditions which, yet AGAIN, are NOT present in the case we are discussing here – that must be met. Including, clear notice of registration, “willful” infringement and that the infringement was of at least 10 copies of a copyrighted work with a value of $2,500, within a 180-day period. I also know that “willfulness” is extremely difficult to prove and indeed can NOT be shown – yet AGAIN, as we are discussing here – by mere reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted
work, by itself.
So what else – that we are NOT discussing here – do you just feel the need to talk about, just so you can let us know that there is something that you happen to be aware of, but obviously don’t understand?
Do you think that infringing on the copyright of a photograph, by making a copy of it and using it on a website is “exactly the same as stealing groceries”?
Do you think that infringing on the copyright of a photograph, by making a copy of it and using it on a website, is felony copyright infringement (since you seem to think “it doesn’t take much for copyright infringement to be enforced
as a felony charge.”)?
What point are you trying to make, other than letting us know that you are inexplicably angry, can’t stay focused on an issue being discussed, and may happen to be aware of, yet clearly don’t understand, esoteric and rarely-used elements of the copyright act – that YET AGAIN, do NOT pertain to ANYTHING we are discussing here?
Perhaps one day I come back here and re-read these comments, just to remind myself of how misguided and irrelevant the comments from wanna-be copyright lawyers can sound!
*sigh*
Thank you, SO much, Chickenart, for letting me know about all you understand about the law, which I do not.
No, I didn’t “immediately believe” that copyright infringement – as we are
discussing it, here – is only a civil court matter. I simply referred
to someone else’s comment, out of expediency. I know it is.
Yes, I am aware that, in very specific instances – which, again, are NOT what
we are talking about here – can be a misdemeanor or a felony. Unlike
you, however, I know it is entirely incorrect to say that “it doesn’t
take much for it to be enforced as a felony charge.” I know that for a
felony charge for copyright infringement to hold, there are many, very
specific conditions – conditions which, yet AGAIN, are NOT present in
the case we are discussing here – that must be met. Including, clear
notice of registration, “willful” infringement and that the infringement
was of at least 10 copies of a copyrighted work with a value of $2,500,
within a 180-day period. I also know that “willfulness” is extremely
difficult to prove and indeed can NOT be shown – yet AGAIN, as we are
discussing here – by mere reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted
work, by itself.
So what else – that we are NOT discussing here – do you just feel the need to talk about, just so you can let us know that there is something that you happen to be aware of, but obviously don’t understand?
Do you think that infringing on the copyright of a photograph, by making a copy of it and using it on a website is “exactly the same as stealing groceries”?
Do you think that infringing on the copyright of a photograph, by making a copy of it and using it on a website, is felony copyright infringement (since you seem
to think “it doesn’t take much for copyright infringement to be enforced as a felony charge.”)?
What point are you trying to make, other than letting us know that you are inexplicably angry, can’t stay focused on an issue being discussed, and may happen to be aware of, yet clearly don’t understand, esoteric and rarely-used elements of the copyright act – that YET AGAIN, do NOT pertain to ANYTHING we are discussing here?
Perhaps one day I come back here and re-read these comments, just to remind myself of how misguided and irrelevant the comments from wanna-be copyright lawyers can sound!
It is EXACTLY like stealing groceries. You are stealing the creator’s work, which he rightfully sells for a profit. He takes this profit to the store and purchases groceries, which he then eats. You are literally taking the food out of his mouth by your theft of his labor.
Why don’t you come over and paint my house? I won’t pay you but I’ll tell all my friends what a good job you did so you can go paint their houses without getting paid too! You can take all that “good will” you’ve received for your hard labor and take it to the store and try to trade it for groceries. See how far you get.
Ugh…. No it’s not like stealing groceries. Not at all.
If you steal groceries, THOSE groceries are GONE. If you COPY a photograph, the original is STILL THERE.
5 year-olds can understand that difference, why can’t you?
You clearly don’t understand the distinction, since you’ve also erroneously and misguidedly equated a service (painting your house) with a physical good. What point are you trying to make, there?
And again – and more to the point – you can argue with me, if you want, but try to go to court and charge someone with “stealing” a copy of your photograph. You won’t get very far.
Just SOME of the differences that the law clearly applies to these very different forms of property, even if you can’t comprehend the distinction:
By law, copyright lasts for about 90 years. Owning groceries (or any other physical good) is forever. No limit, at all.
By law, there are stated, affirmative defenses to copyright infringement, such as fair use, educational purpose, social commentary. There is no such defense for theft of physical property. You can’t steal a can of beans and defend yourself by saying you were teaching students about beans or that it was a public comment on food.
By law, copyright only applies to certain works, as described. There is no such limitation on ownership of physical property. There is no copyright for sound recordings made before 1972. All physical property can be owned and protected, no matter when it was made.
It’s just a really dumb argument to say that copying a copyrighted work is “just like stealing groceries” or some other physical good. It’s not.
HEY DUMBASS – YOU ARE STEALING GROCERIES OUT OF THE MOUTH OF THE CREATOR, NOT FROM THE STORE.
Only a dedicated thief would claim otherwise.
” but try to go to court and charge someone with “stealing” a copy of your photograph”
What exactly do you think copyright litigation is all about, anyway? The semantics may be different but the principle and the intent is exactly the same.
The fact is that federal statutes actually provide for terms in the federal penitentiary for copyright infringement. Those penalties are rarely assessed these day thanks to huge lobbying expenditures by anti-copyright entities like Google, but they’re still on the books and were commonly implemented prior to the late ’90s, mostly against operators of online pirate sites that ran afoul of the Business Software Alliance, as well as movie pirates distributing stolen copies of prints of unreleased movies.
It appears that you have to be very well financed to get justice in this country. Things are actually a good deal tighter in many European countries, like Germany.
We need those laws enforced again, to the maximum extent of the law .
Rampant theft has already destroyed the recorded music industry, but that’s just the canary in the coal mine.
Hey dumb-ass yourself, what part of “I don’t support copyright infringement – AT ALL” but simply trying to explain a basic concept about copyright law, makes you think I’m a copyright violator?
Um, “stealing groceries OUT OF THE MOUTH OF THE CREATOR” via some tenuous connection is still NOT the same thing as stealing groceries.
But hey, feel free to keep flailing away at this very simple concept with your reactionary comments that don’t address the issue. I can’t wait to see what you come up with next…
“What exactly do you think copyright litigation is all about, anyway?”
Well, for starters, as someone eloquently explained, above, copyright litigation IS NOT a “criminal” trial. By definition, it can’t be.
If you steal however, you will be subject to an actual criminal trial.
Copyright cases are about infringement of rights, not about “stealing.”
It is much more than semantics. It is the law of copyright. Again, the principle is considerably different – and that is why copyright and IP is handled ENTIRELY DIFFERENTLY than physical property.
But again, you just keep on saying that, as far as you’re concerned, they are exactly the same. Ignore every distinction I’ve pointed out, every fact I and others have brought up.
Make sure you NEVER CONSIDER that by law, you CAN NOT retain your copyright indefinitely. Nope. It’s exactly the same as conventional property. Like, when Ford builds a car, they know they HAVE to give it away after 70 years…. Yeah….
Be sure to COMPLETELY IGNORE the concept of “affirmative defenses” to copyright, which defenses DO NOT exist for physical property. You’re smart and you know that the laws protecting IP are exactly the same as those applying to physical property. Like, when those looters got off, scott-free, after they explained that looting that grocery store was a “valid public commentary?” Yeah….
Sure. the “principle is exactly the same”….
As I’ve said, just keep yammering on about how you think copying a photograph is “exactly like stealing.” and good luck with it!
You know what Lance, its ok you don’t quite get it, because if you violate it, you will find out that we take it seriously.
Wow. Thanks for setting me straight, Ryan!
Clearly, I really don’t “get it” with respect to copyright law. Eaxh of my posts here clearly indicates that, I know.
You, on the other hand…
You understand it enough to level the type of entirely misguided threat to make me realize that I might find something out about it, one day!
Yes, it is stealing in the sense that you’re trying to get something-for-nothing at other people’s expense.
No it’s not “stealing” in any “sense,” especially not in the sense that you’ve stated.
Once again, if someone COPIES a photograph (they don’t actually take it, they don’t deprive you of it – they copy it off of the internet, without your even knowing) what is the expense, to the photographer? What can you show was “stolen” from the photographer?
Nothing.
Now, think about that for a minute, and actually follow the thought…
It should get you to: “So, what is COPYRIGHT protecting?”
We have separate laws that make “stealing” and “theft” punishable actions. If copyright infringement actually were “stealing” or garden-variety “theft,” we wouldn’t need COPYRIGHT law.
So, why do we have this separate COPYRIGHT law? What dose COPYRIGHT law protect? What did the photographer really lose, in this scenario? What can he/she ACTUALLY SHOW that he/she lost?
It’s right there, in the very name of the law, itself, folks….
You make a false assumption. I’m not making a legal statement. Just a subjective moral statement. For me, morally speaking, it is a form of stealing. A kind of metaphysical theft.
Well, as I’ve said consistently, throughout these multiple discussions, that’s precisely why we have copyright law. Trying to apply subjective moral ideas to specific behavior, with a set of static, written laws is difficult, at best.
This is why it’s important for people to understand the LEGAL distinction.
I agree with Lance.
It’s theft of service, which is prosecutable in every state.
No. It’s not theft of servicre. Theft of service applies to the unauthorized taking of an ongoing service that is otherwise paid for, typically as a subscription. Things like electric utilities, cable or satellite tv, telephone service and the like.
Why do people who have no legal background or training insist on arguing these esoteric legal concepts?
Why can’t folks acknowledge that thisbis not their area of expeetise and nit make uninformed statements and arguments about it?
Do you think it would be smart for someone who doesn’t know anything about the way a camera works just start arguing with you somethin like that you just don’t understand – they know that aperture settings control shutter speed?
Soooooo you are a legal expert then?
Perhaps the content of my posts would make you think I might be not only a lawyer, but a copyright expert?
maybe. but it is easy to copy and paste.
I’m not sure I even should dignify that with a response.
How can you “cut and paste” lucid, specifically-tailored responses within a thread of comments, including quotes and direct responses?
Try being coherent. Just because you can “copy and paste” opinions or wiki “facts” doesn’t make you an expert.
Being “coherent” would be something like actually reading my comments here, seeing that they are specifically tailored responses and realizing that I’m obvioualy not cutting and pasting canned “opinions” or “wiki facts” that I C&Ped off the web in such a specific manner.
Whatever. Believe whatever you want. It doesn’t matter to me.
I gotta say, I have rarely encountered a group in a forum – at least not a purely political forum – that had such a loud and proudly ignorant constituency, bent on actively avoiding considering additional information which is presented in a non-threatening, neutral and intellectual voice.
I’m perhaps starting to see why the photographic community has been so bad at organizing and effectively protecting photographers’ interests?
Actually, Lance, I think you’re taking it way too literally. It seems to me the OP was making an analogy. There are similarities in that there is false logic being used in both arguments.
Photographers put their product online so others can see their work and purchase it. If someone copies it without paying and shares it with others then the photographers work is devalued. People will not want to purchase from him or her if they can get it for free elsewhere. It’s stealing, depriving photographers of a rightful income. If you don’t want to risk lawsuits, then take your own photos.
*sigh*
Lar, thanks so much for the basic tutorial on how photographs can be displayed and promoted for sale on the internet. Good information, that I’m sure most of us didn’t know…
Addressing for a moment, your incorrect, one-size-fits-all, categorical statement that any time someone “shares a photograph with others without paying for it then the photographer’s work is devalued.” So, just today, a friend of mine ecstatically announced that her photograph would appear in a magazine – with absolutely no compensation to her – because the magazine has wide distribution! Could she possibly be making her own value judgment, thinking not that this “devalues” her photographs, but instead about the promotional value for her photography, going forward?
Also, there are lots of ways to not get sued using other people’s photographs, as long as you’re not illegally infringing the photographer’s rights.
Anyway, my point was, is and has been, NOT that copyright infringement should be allowed, or that photos and other creative works don’t deserve protection. The point is, quite specifically, that making analogies to copyright infringement such as: “It’s just like stealing from a store” or “It’s as if I came and took your car” is woefully misguided. Copyright is a very unique set of rights that have been established and granted, precisely because making a copy of a photograph is NOT the same thing as stealing from a store or taking some other physical property.
What if you are a seller of a digital good that converts to a physical item? Lets say you design cookie cutters or stencils in CAD and print them on a 3d printer and sell them. If you based those designs on your own copyrighted work they should be yours right? But if someone got access to the STLs that are used to create the physical items on a 3d printer and then started selling those in competition with you effectively taking groceries out of your mouth because your sales are now suffering…. Is that not stealing? If not, Why so? If it is stealing, then why would it be different than a photograph that was also created by someone else and not authorized to be used for monetary purposes? Should the creator of those STL files not share them on file sharing services like Thingiverse because they should expect people to just take everything you share and use it as they please despite the policies in place where these things are shared? I would certainly consider it theft, and I see no difference between the STL file someone created that is turned into a physical item and the photograph.
B mill you are asking a lot of questions. To try to answer them in series…
If you designed cookie cutters or stencils in CAD and print them on a 3d
printer and sell them and the designs had sufficiently unique copyrightable content then yes, the work would be yours.
If someone got access to the files used to create the physical items on a 3d printer and then started selling those in competition with you, “it” (and there are several elements of the act you are describing) may be stealing. I don’t know. How did they get the files of coordinates? They may have stolen them, if they took them from your house or business.
Merely making competitive items, with their own process and material is, by definition, not “stealing.”
We have been over why it is not stealing about 400 times in the this comment thread already. You can dream up as many different scenarios as you want but the fundamental issue will pretty much always control:
If I a) REMOVE an ITEM from your possession, then I have “stolen” it. If, on the other hand, I b) merely make a COPY of an item (and do not deprive you of possession of an item), than I have typically only “infringed” on an exclusive right to make that copy.
WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND FOR YOU PEOPLE?!?!?!
Finally, if you “see no difference between the STL file someone created that is turned into a physical item and the photograph,” then there’s probably a pretty good reason why you’re not an IP lawyer. Being able to understand the distinction – as our law clearly does – is a prerequisite for being able to deal with these issues.
YES….IT….IS. THEFT IS THEFT.
NO….IT….ISN’T.
INFRINGEMENT IS INFRINGEMENT.
THEFT IS NOT INFRINGEMENT, AND INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT.
SEE, ONE IS SPELLED:
T
H
E
F
T
WHILE THE OTHER IS SPELLED ENTIRELY DIFFERENTLY. IT IS SPELLED:
I
N
F
R
I
N
G
E
M
E
N
T
THEY ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WORDS.
KINDA SAD THAT, DESPITE KNOWING HOW TO USE ALL CAPS, YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND THAT DIFFERENT WORDS ARE IN FACT USED, PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS.
Lance, in an economic sense it IS like stealing anything else. Consider:
– The value of a product (ie what people are willing to pay) depends both on the cost to create it and the amount of supply (Normally, oversupply reduces value, limited supply increases value.)
– Steal groceries and the seller loses out in several ways:
– They are deprived of income for the product
– To recover that income, they’ve got to spend money to grow or buy more
– Steal a copyrighted photo and the seller loses out in several ways:
– They are deprived of income for the product
– To recover that income, they’ve got to spend money to take more photos
Sure, there are details that are different for *every* product, but the basics are identical. Some of the detail differences, and it is WORSE for photos:
– unsold bananas rot and lose value;
– unsold cars become outdated and lose value;
– photos that have been stolen become widely distributed and lose value even before the photographer learns they’ve had a loss.
What you don’t understand is that making illegal copies of a limited-availability product causes great harm to the seller. They absolutely 100% do suffer loss: loss in value of their photo; loss of ability to sell; etc.
MrPete, you might want to refrain from trying to tell me what I don’t understand about copyright law. Just saying…
Of course, in a grand economic sense, copyright violation is like stealing. That’s precisely why we have copyright protection, eh?
“Sure, there are details that are different for *every* product, but the
basics are identical.”
No. The details, and the law, is NOT “different for *every* product.” Car, truck, motorcycle, groceries, a Yo-Yo, the Hope diamond – all of these varied physical items – “products” – have the exact same concept and laws of property ownership attached to them. That law is significantly different than the law that applies to photographs or a play. What I am trying to point out here is that folks need to understand that, in some very significant ways, the concept and the laws supporting intellectual property like copyright are very different than those that apply to physical property.
This article, the video it links to, and these comments are (should be?….) about an actual copyright infringement case and the settlement of that case. That involves – quite specifically – COPYRIGHT LAW. Not “general ideas.” Not “some differing details but identical basics.” Not “like stealing.”
Copyright law is quite distinct from the laws that govern physical property – For MANY VALID REASONS.
If you are in the business of creating and exploiting your intellectual property, it behooves you to take the time to understand these important distinctions and how they apply to your endeavors and your business.
It’s not like it except that in both cases, someone’s work and value is stolen for someone else’s gain. Oh so they are the same.
No.
ONCE AGAIN, It’s not like it because, in ONLY ONE CASE someone’s work is a) ACTUALLY TAKEN and thereafter it is GONE, and in the other case, it is b) only COPIED, and in the original REMAINS.
Oh so you ARE too dense to understand the difference between TAKING and COPYING….
How can you make the business of copyright your livelihood (or a significant, compelling avocation) and be so willfully ignorant of a basic element of it?
It’s really sad.
So what if there’s a difference. There’s also a difference between stealing a cupcake (oops, gone!) and stealing a diamond — which we all know lasts forever. If you didn’t compensate the owner, and took/used it without permission — you stole it. Digital goods are here to stay. The law will eventually catch up. We creators pay our taxes. It’s in our governments’ best interests to make sure that our businesses are protected like every other.
No. Try again.
In both cases you present, the owner of the item – whether it’s a cupcake or the Hope Diamond – loses possession of that physical item. It doesn’t matter what happens to the item after the original owner who had rights to it loses it.
When someone copies your photograph, they do not take the original from you.
I’m not really sure why everyone is having such a hard time with this. Really. It’s very simple.
There’s a difference between a) taking a thing, and b) making a copy.
Oh, pleeeze. You try again.
The definition of “steal” does not say anything about losing possession of an item: It says: Steal: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
Kinda think you’re just trolling here.
Wow.
I have no idea where you got that definition. At all.
In any event, I almost cannot fathom how you would type that comment, and not think to yourself: “Hmmmm, before I press “Post” here, does the idea of “taking” something from someone, also NECESSARILY mean that the person who had it thereafter losses possession of it?”
Enough of your misguided rants about food vs. diamonds, or your inability to understand that taking something means another no longer has it. Stay on point.
Answer the question:
If someone goes into a grocery store and steal groceries, no “original” of those groceries can still remain, correct? If there is one can of beans, and they take that can, do you understand that the can of beans is no longer there?
If someone makes a copy of of your photograph on the web, does the photograph that you had disappear? Or, do you STILL have your copy of the photograph, even though someone else also has a copy?
Do you understand the difference between:
a) TAKING, and
b) MAKING A COPY?
LOL — where do you get your definitions? Make them up?
Here you go:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/steal
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/steal
http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/steal
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/steal?s=t
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/steal
. . . but go ahead, keep making yourself look sillier with every comment. How did you GET that digital media off the internet? Did you just look at it and it popped into your possession? No, let’s all say it together — you had to TAKE it.
Now go read a dictionary.
Aaaaaaaaaaaannnnnndddddddd…
You’re STILL not answering the basic question. And it’s becoming pretty clear that you don’t understand it:
Do you understand the difference between:
a) TAKING, and
b) MAKING A COPY?
No more sophomoric diversions into cupcakes vs. diamonds or that “stealing” and “taking” somehow doesn’t mean that the owner loses possession of the item taken/stolen (?!?!?).
We’ll wait until you answer the simple question.
Is there a difference between a) taking something, away, and b) making a copy of something?
Yes or no?
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft
Do you understand the difference between:
a) TAKING something, and
b) MAKING A COPY of something?
Kinda puzzled by why you can’t answer the simple question…
Is it too hard for you?
Will you now post another unrelated URL, while avoiding giving an answer?
Strange you don’t understand how the “intangible” crimes of Identity Theft and IP Theft are similar and “new” crimes thanks to the Internet. Neither crime has a tangible theft.
Also, strange that you don’t understand that in order to make an illegal copy, you first need to “take” something that doesn’t belong to you.
Just doing a little googling you would see that there’s enough controversy (even in legal judgements) that the definition of whether these new Internet crimes are officially “stealing” (yet) or not has been left up for debate. Now with the Internet, and so many of us Content Creators screaming that YES, our property and our livelihoods are being stolen, nabbed, lifted, grabbed by users with enormous entitlement complexes. We creators will be the ones who define what’s happening to our work. Not users.
Even stranger that you think this discussion is, in any way, about whether or not a “crime” can be about “intangible” items.
Who EVER said that in order to have a crime, you have to have a tangible item?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straw%20man
The point was, and still remains, that Copyright, which addresses an author’s right to the exploitation of their work, is NECESSARILY DIFFERENT than laws that apply to the theft of common property.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html
Also, strange that you think that, with digital reproductions, in order to make an illegal copy, you first need to “take” something that doesn’t belong to you.
Again, you seem unable to discern the distinction between “copying” and “taking.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/take
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copy
Just doing even a little Googling, you would see that there’s already hundreds of years of copyright law, that applies EXACTLY to the situation that this article addresses – namely: a civil case alleging the unauthorized copying of a photograph (which photograph the owner of NEVER asserted was “taken” from him, but rather, merely copied, without his permission).
Just a little more Googling (and perhaps some actual thought, which is in short supply for you, I know…) and you would know that NO ONE is suggesting ANY TYPE of change to the centuries-old concepts of copyright that would transform them from limited rights, including a time-limited exclusive right to make copies and distribute them, into any other type of actual property right.
Unfortunately, now with the Internet, so many content creators can scream all they want (how did those RIAA lawsuits work out for the record companies?… Yeah….) but the unfortunate truth is that it is just too easy for non-creators to
be the ones who define what’s happening to the work. Not the owners.
“Copying” is just the most common form of infringement. In my case, I license my black and white illustrations to crafters who purchase them instead of physical, rubber stamps to color and use in their art projects. All of my samples are watermarked, and the only way you see the unwatermarked art is to purchase a license. My income has dropped 50% over the past 3 years, because users find watermarked samples, use Photoshop to remove the watermarks and upload to Pinterest (or other social media) for thousands to download instead of purchasing. (I spend hours per month filling out DMCAs) Or — legitimate purchasers buy, break my ToU and share an image with hundreds of crafters in one of the many secret or closed groups on FB specifically created for the purpose of sharing images with others who have not purchased the right to use it.
It’s stealing. And the thing that will stop it is when individual creators get together and lobby congress for action, so we don’t need to hire expensive lawyers just to get justice.
Anyway, I’ve spent enough time arguing with someone who acts sounds like a teenager. Anyone who reads
this page can see by how you’ve hijacked the comments under the post
just how right you think you are. Go learn how to create something instead of rationalizing theft.
Again, apology accepted, Mo.
Hard to fathom how I’ve “hijacked” a comments section, where my only comments were in direct response to other, previous comments. Or how you assume – again, entirely incorrectly – that I am somehow “rationalizing theft (or “copyright infringement” as we’ve repeatedly established here, ad nasuem). Far from it. My entire point in posting here – which not at all surprisingly, you managed to COMPLETELY gloss over – was to let people in this forum know to be cautious about how they view what are their very specific rights and remedies.
Also, contrary to your misguided characterization, I create stuff all day. Every day. I just actually understand what rights attach to my creations.
But, these types of unsupported assertions and the utter failure to understand what is even being said, are more than expected, by now.
BTW, Saying: “All of my samples are watermarked, and the only way you see the unwatermarked art is to purchase a license.” is directly contra to the following: “users find watermarked samples, use Photoshop to remove the watermarks and upload…”
But again, that type of inconsistency (in detail the likes of which you love to make so much hay about, for others) has also proven to be de riguer.
You really should try and check your impulse to engage in knee-jerk arguments over minor elements of what people say or post, and perhaps try to stay focused on the larger point being made. Just a suggestion…
Anyway, as far as I can tell – and I am in this process, up to my eyeballs (whether you choose to believe me or not) – creators getting together to lobby congress to make changes for their benefit is never going to happen, in ANY consistent, reasonable and rational way. Even if the creative community could convene around a common legislative agenda that was remotely approachable, congress isn’t going to change anything that’s going to limit Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al’s. business models. Not any time soon.
Glad you think I act and sound “like a teenager.”
If only…
God, could you love your own rambling any more than you do?
You mean, as much as YOU obviously love YOURS?
Probably not THAT much, no.
Here, I’m trying to explain a very real, important legal distinction. So, there’s an actual beneficial, educational purpose for my posts. Unlike many that, say, clearly just want to type out and publish inane comments about things like cupcakes vs. diamonds, while entirely missing the point and the actual issue being addressed.
Copyright confers on the copyright holder the right to decide both whom and under what conditions, financial or otherwise, a copy of their intellectual property can be made. In other words, I, as a professional photographer, have the absolute right, enshrined in Copyright legislation, to require licence payment or compensation for the use of one of my photographs. An infringer is not stealing a copy of my work, he/she/it is stealing my right to decide the conditions under which a copy can be made. This directly deprives me of potential income and that is what the infringer is sued for.
http://www.utica.edu/academic/institutes/cimip/idcrimes/schemes.cfm
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignoratio%20elenchi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversion
Yawn.
Apology accepted, Mo.
Now, go forth and teach others:
1) Copying something is different than taking something.
2) Even those too intellectual challenged to understand this logic, when in doubt, can simply ask yourself: “If copyright infringement is ‘exactly the same as stealing,’ then why would we have an entirely separate copyright law, AT ALL? If it really was ‘the same thing as stealing from a store’ then general theft laws would cover it. Hmmmmm…. but we DO have an entirely separate copyright law. DOH!” and
3) As hard as you may try, you can’t avoid these simple facts by just posting irrelevant URLs!
We’re not accepting your argument because your argument is moot. The point is, if you use a work copyrighted by someone else for your own profit, they have a right to sue you and you can be arrested for the act. By that definition, colloquial or not, you were stealing
Oh boy…
More uneducated people with absolutely no ability to just be quiet about something they clearly don’t understand.
1) No one asked you to “accept” my argument. The fact is that there is – and the law absolutely acknowledges – a distinction between a) taking something, and b) merely copying something. That fact is not “moot.” it is, actually the ENTIRE PREMISE of copyright law.
2) The point actually IS NOT “if you use a work copyrighted by someone else for your own profit, they have a right to sue.” Violation of copyright is not dependent on whether the violation was for “profit” or “personal gain.”
3) Only in very specific and relatively rare circumstances “you can be arrested for the act.”
4) No. By the ACTUAL “definition, colloquial or not,” Copyright infringement is NOT “stealing.” Rather, it is….
wait for it….
Copyright infringement!
If it were “defined as stealing” then WE WOULDN’T NEED A SEPARATE COPYRIGHT LAW – you MORON….
Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you use a copyrighted item for your own profit, you are stealing and can be sued and/or arrested and go to jail.
Actualy it is you, FlyingWrong, that is “wrong, wrong, wrong.
As I said in response to your earlier ill-informed post:
1) Copyright infringement does NOT rely on whether the infringer “uses a copyrighted item for their own profit.” Copyright violation is NOT
dependent on whether the violation was for “profit” or any type of gain. If someone makes an unauthorized copy of your work for their own personal use, or to give it away for free, they have still violated the copyright.
At this point, I have absolutely no illusion that you will either a) actually think about that, or b) ever have the capacity to understand it. Thankfully however, that important legal fact doesn’t depend on your understanding it.
2) Only in very specific and relatively rare circumstances can you can “be arrested and go to jail” for copyright infringement.
But hey, feel free to go on posting, to let us know how incapable you are of actually understanding these distinctions.
Just stumbled on this old post and had a blast reading it. Completely agree with Lance and found myself laughing at his fruitless effort to explain a pretty simple idea. I’m a photographer for over a decade now and in no way would I consider someone taking a photo off my website the same as walking in to my studio and grabbing a print off the wall. I respect copyright law. I’ve used it to my advantage.
But there IS a difference.
Stealing a physical product deprives me of all potential earnings form that specific product. It’s gone.
Making a copy of a products deprives me of potential earnings IF and ONLY IF the
person who takes it would have purchased it had they not made a copy OR they give access to another party who also would have purchased it.
I support my fellow ‘togs making a living and absolutely encourage everyone to protect their work and go after businesses who violate your copyrights… but some of you guys take this to the extreme. I’ve actually had other photographers encourage me to send DMCA requests (or SUE) kids who were using my photos on their Facebook profiles… sorry, no. I sent them messages thanking them for appreciating my work.
It’s exactly like stealing from a shop. It is the photographers work, that he spent time & money to create, using his equipment, education & expertise, then he copyrighted it. If you want to use someones picture, you contact them, you offer to pay them a fee for the privilege of use(which they may or may not take you up on) & you credit them as the photographer on the image. I have images of my millinery taken at Fashion Week parades, but even though it’s my pieces in the picture, I contacted the photographer & asked permission to use those images to advertise my work. He was kind enough not to charge me, but just add credit for the photos.
T.W.A.T.
Hey, that’s actually an excellent idea! Take the most beautiful pictures, post them on the internet and track them. Then sue the person who used it without permission! It can be a very profiting business! Not ethical, mind you. And probably temporary because your name will soon be on everyone’s “most hated” lists, and a law issued against, what they will probably call, “entrapment”, but at $27,000 a pic… Wow!
Hey, that’s actually an excellent idea! Make the most beautiful handcrafted ornaments, post them in stores with minimal security and track them. Then sue the person who steals it without payment! It can be a very profiting business! Not ethical, mind you. And probably temporary because your name will soon be on everyone’s “most hated” lists, and a law issued against, what they will probably call, “entrapment”, but at $27,000 a pic… Wow!
See, when it’s a physical product you come across as a special kind of stupid. When it’s digital it makes no difference. Do you know how long it takes to find a photo on the internet that somebody may not have paid for? This video tutorial at 1:04 minutes in length will give you a rough idea; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnr6-cXFVzs
Don’t fucking steal other people’s shit you schlep!
Intense!
No man, no. For one thing it was probably many more than one image. Also, mostly pros are using these services. People who make plenty of money, don’t want their work stolen, and on average make enough back in damages to pay for the watchdogs who file copyright infringment suits. Only those who believe everything posted on the web should be free hate them.
I was actually being a bit sarcastic. As a writer I know how painful and financially debilitating it is when people don’t value the work that has gone into a piece and aren’t willing to pay for it. Apologies for the emotions I unintentionally stirred.
Went to his Web site. He can’t write in complete sentences either. And is very vague while claiming things about himself. He gives lessons in marketing. That’s his business, which makes him even more of an idiot for posting this video.
While I completely agree with the sentiments expressed by the author, that doesn’t negate that there are copyright trolls just like there are patent trolls. Companies who exist solely to help content get seen and then use lawsuits to drive revenue.
The best way to starve those entities and bring down their business then is to NOT STEAL, right?
Exactly!
Not trolls, they are in business because there is demand for the service. Why would you think artists have time or want to go through the stress of going after thieves themselves? And the only way to get the message across to these thieves is to hit them in the pocketbook where it hurts. I wish more photographers and other artists would use these services. Maybe then more ignoramuses like this one would could be “educated” and the theft would decrease.
Mr. DaSilva- You got sued solely because you were then and are apparently now ignorant of the law. Ignorance of the law or disagreement with the law does not, unfortunately for you, rescind the law. When you disobey the law, even unknowingly, you pay the price.
Got it?
Why do you think the loser was ignorant of the copuright law? Because he says so? His claim is simply a deflection of the truth, which is that the perp stole the photographer’s work to try to make money. Its a good lesson to remind people that once its created, its copyrighted. simple to understand.
Bill and mauiwind you both have a point. Whether he actually is ignorant, or just using the “idiot defense,” the result is neither gets him off the hook. And now that he’s been sued and had to pay, to still be–or pretend to be–that ignorant exposes him as being incredibly stupid, and/or a pants on fire liar. I suspect the latter. His students better wake up.
He keeps right on digging in follow up video. Narcissism on steroids.
There’s a concert photographer here in Ohio that has been on a mission to stop so called “content creators” and websites from stealing his photography for their own purposes. There’s nothing malicious about what he’s doing, he is just fed up with it. The more this kid talks the more ignorant he sounds.
what a moron ?
My lawyer said not to make this video…SO I DECIDED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO!!! What a Goddamned moron!!!
If you want pictures for your website..hire someone to take the images……
There’s malicious people out there alright.. people that steal photos to use for their commercial gain…. What a tool.
Someone maliciously parked a Ferrari in front of my house and I took it, now he calls the cops on me! The gall!
Millennial Brain working right there…. Its mine, no matter who it belongs to
Let me guess. He’s a democrat.
He disabled the comments…. I was going to post this. It clearly states copyright ownership.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/254826
Welp. That kid is a dildo.
Gotta love ‘entrepreneur’ in quotes.
Good for the photographers and everyone else out there who creates content. As a Fine Art Artist I know the value of having hard work.Bravo for the Artist going after him. He should have at least given credit to the image creator.
$37,000 ?
Dan Dasilva can earn that money in one day.
Dan Dasilva is an absolute idiot! People don’t “copyright” their stuff. It’s copyrighted as soon as they create it! #dontsteal
Mate you are a clown, an image taken by other person is automatically copyrighted and if you want to steal someones work and put it on your own site. you deserve to be sued.
No there isn’t malicious people out there trying to catch people out there is people out trying to protect their name and their work.
How about people come and steal your work and use it for themselves how would you like it. Just because something is online doesn’t mean you can freely use it.
Its about time you took a dose of reality and grow up. Do not blame others for your deception.
“But everything on the Internet should be free!”
I’m gonna make a mask of his face and sell it as a halloween costume.
I agree you should respect copyright. That said, there are professional photograph litigators who out there copyrighted image in as many places as possible and then file exorbitant lawsuits over their misuse. The copyright version of patent trolls. The fact that he lost $27k for incidental use suggests that’s what he ran up against.
Um, so maybe DON’T STEAL?
Don’t try to make money out of other peoples’ work. The end.
Yes there exist companies who you can hire to monitor your intellectual property for theft. And yes photogs. and other artists use them to file suit to get back whatever damages can be negotiated (they’re almost all settled out of court).
I can think of at least 3 good reasons for that: (1) there is demand for the services because copyright infringment on the web is rampant, (2) it is near impossible to do it yourself if you are a busy artist with plenty of work to be stolen, and (3) why be stressed about someone stealing from you when you can pay someone to recover damages?
If fools like this guy feel like they are being entrapped, there’s an easy answer: stop stealing. If enough people got the message, then demand for these services would decline and they’d go away.
$50,000 (by his estimate) is an awful lot of money to pay out to learn not one damned thing. Talk about a piece of work. It’s almost like hearing a shoplifter complaining that stores just leave stuff sitting out in the open and then maliciously prosecute anyone who steals something.
Are people really that stupid?
He must have been getting roasted for that video because he’s disabled comments on it.
What a fucking retard. This guy’s mom tried to abort him by throwing herself downt he stairs, but it only made the fetus retarded.
I just went on another of his videos to post my comment. Anyone who violates copyright infringement and pathetically victimizes his/herself publicly deserves to be called out. It’s the basics of entrepreneurship. This guy is a crook and a tool.
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Dan, you do a disfavor to your viewers when you tell them to steal people’s intellectual property. For all your viewers that want to license images make sure you check out the link I provided.
Immature, lacks wisdom and knowledge. Thinks everything is free and his, and if he can make a buck without actually working. Thats seems to be his world.
You crafty photographers… I knew you were up to some shady stuff, but I didn’t know you were creating content, posting it to the internet and then lying in wait for the big payday. Clever bastards.
damn, why didn’t I think of that before? :)
The really clever part is how we manipulate googles algorithms to show our work specifically. Trap set!
And soon to be sued for defamation!
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?
boy’s not too sharp…
What a moron. Steals someones photo and then complains. LOL
“Malicious Photographers” put their images all over the internet so they can sue people that use them is like saying “Malicious Convenience Store Managers” put candy bars on display so they can sue people that steal them.
Many of the questions that Mike asks are not simple black and white answers. Photographing an image of a baseball player and selling it as a print or accompanying a news article usually is legal, but using it in an advertisement to promote a product will be illegal.
The other thing that Mr. Dasilva seems to be missing is that copyright isn’t the only form of infringement. A certain image may not have a copyright, but may be a registered trademark. The laws and penalties are similar, but still are very different. Then there’s another lesser known set of intellectual property laws regarding “Right to Publicity”, so even if an image passes the copyright and trademark usage laws, the subject of an image may sue for infringing on their right of publicity.
I hate this attitude, it seems to be prevalent in this day now. The complete inability to accept any form of responsibility. Malicious? Get real, do you do anything of your own? I seriously doubt it.
why did you embed his video? you’ve just given him so many views and revenue.
Wow, steal someone’s work get sued for it. Ummmm, durr? No wonder comments are turned off on his video on youtube, prolly people calling him out on his shit.
Awesome, now he has a case to sue for libel :-P
Entitled asshole. Good luck getting anyone to respect or work with you.
wow, this douchebag is a fucking moron.
You guys really need to make your font bigger.
Is it legal to use images that are labeled for reuse by Google under Usage Rights?
What an incredible moron. Steals a photographer’s work. Bitches because he gets called out.
And, of course, the moron has disabled comments on this video. Coward. His stupidity is affirmed when he uses the phrase “freely available.” The artist’s work isn’t freely available. It’s copyrighted. Just plain stupid.
What a fucking moron…..”when I factor my time….”? Lol ? so your time it’s valuable but that “malicious photographer” not? Get a life dude, Didn’t even learned his lesson… the settlements was not enough!
It’s as simple as looking for images with the right creative commons license.
Or you could, or know, pay for someone’s work.
I wouldn’t go into a shop and take a bottle of water without paying. Even though in many places water is free, you still have to pay for bottled water
You don’t have to copyright a photo you took. It’s copyrighted the moment you take it…Should have listened to your lawyer…
By the way, you know what’s cheaper than $150,000 fine? A camera…
I think it’s only fair to expect a civil notice asking for compensation or to take images down first. Going straight to suing is kinda shitty.
why not just buy a camera and take your own photos
Or Learn Photoshop and make your own
WHat an idiot, how does he run a successful business, can you say copyright is OWNERSHIP, how stupid can you friggin be?!?!?! OMG
If this guy seriously wanted answers he would consult a copyright attorney instead random people online or friends. He’s already proven that he has a serious lack of brain cells though.
sadly, not an isolated incident. He who creates the work, owns the work, and its unauthorised derivatives. Corporations have been known to engage in this sort of thing too. Some standards of professional conduct, aught to be encouraged.
I needed a good laugh this morning. What a moron.
Sadly this guy is probably a future President of the US! What a dunderhead!
Perhaps products in his store are free to take also
What an idiot!
At the same time – you expected less by posting work on the web? really? I understand copyright people, but in this new day and age, I think the only people that win are lawyers. The photographers aggressive retaliation lost him a future if his name gets out no matter how good or righteous he thinks he is.
This guy is an idiot. Every single separate image has its own copyright, EVEN IF SOME APPEAR IDENTICAL, if they are sequential images have individual copyright. Also, the owner does not need to do anything to obtain copyright, it is automatic. The obligation is on YOU to find the photographer and work out a deal. If you can’t find the photographer, and you still use the image, it’s your fault and your liability. NO EXCUSES.
https://www.youtube.com/user/redcutmarketing/discussion He blocked the comments uner the video on Youtube, but there you can comment.
you are a total idiot , sad sad man
What a stupid twat!!! Dont steal images.
Was the lawyer really worth $10,000?
What an idiot. If I was his lawyer I would have told him not to make his video because it makes him look really stupid and misguided. At least he was smart enough to disable comments on his video. I’m assuming he did that after a couple thousand “you’re a moron” comments.
It was not theft. It was copying. The photographer is the one who is morally reprehensible.
Man, are you really as ignorant as your posts make you seem? Do a little research on copyright law, then come back and report what you’ve found.
You couldn’t be more wrong. Copying is plagiarism – this is theft of copyright which is what the courts will uphold and is just like any other theft including stealing from a shop – the analogy is sound and is given to put it into context.
Happens all the time. When I was an art director at a large corporation, they ordered me to use scanned images of illustrators work to make a presentation. I brought up the copyright implications (as the art director, I would also be liable for copyright violation, as would anyone working on that project, using copyrighted material). The answer (supposedly from the legal department) was to go ahead and if any of the copyright owners approached the company, they should be told that the art was used for a presentation of THEIR work for a big project in which they’ll be used. Then they won’t sue.
The project was done but not one of the copyright owners were used for the product. On a lighter note, I used my knowledge of the multiple violations for a nice payday when I left the company.
Yes, sadly, “whatever you can get away with” is a common business model. Big chain stores are well known for ripping off independent artists like this. Occasionally they get caught and have to pay a settlement, but it’s still cheaper they reckon, than paying artists fairly, up front, for everything they use. It’s disgusting. I have such a long boycott list of stores, for this reason.
It’s not stealing its use without permission. One could argue that it’s up to a photographer to properly protect their work on the internet if they want to profit off of it. If google scrapes a photo on your website and you didn’t bother to properly protect it or even mark the content usage then you’re just doing yourself a disservice. Watermark your work, sell it on an image platform and do your homework.
this guy is really, really dumb. facepalm
What about Royalty Free Photos
My friend has subscription
And he said I can download photos for blogging
Assuming the source is the real owner, and you follow the owner’s terms of use, yes. The problem is that a lot of sources offering images are not verifying the people or uploads there, so infringers can easily expose images they don’t own any rights to, on these sources. It’s important to check out who is really offering them, and make sure it’s all above board, and that you don’t use the image in a way that’s outside the agreement. Also, there has been a proliferation of “Scraper sites” that just scrape content from the web with software, obviously nothing they have rights to offer for sale or for free to anyone. The kicker is that scraper sites are notorious for infecting viewers computers with malware. So if a person goes there, especially if they download anything, or give the site any personal info (god forbid a credit card number!), it’s likely to be even worse, (identity theft, fraud, phishing scam). So just make sure you’re getting images from the real owner and going by their terms.
How freaking STUPID are you, dude? Oh yes, we create images as *traps* for morons like you to fall into.
Sweet Jesus, no wonder you disabled comments on that YouTube page. You probably didnt need 150,000 people reminding you that you’re a complete idiot.
He could also purchase royalty free images , approx . $15, shutterstock, istock etc ., instead of downloading images that could have copyright.
Lay off the Adderall.
Weapons grade douchebag discovers there are actual things called “laws”. Stupid, greedy and ignorant. You a triple threat son
Comments Disabled on the video lol.
I love how the comments are dissabled on his video…
Here’s a radical idea. Create some original content and use that for your shopify store. No lawsuits! Idiot.
I’m just glad he didn’t want to “deframe” the photographer by mentioning his name in his rant. I didn’t want to click on his video and add any more pennies to his YT channel, but sometimes the incredible stupidity of some people has to be seen to really appreciate its depth and breadth.
So, if you do watch the video, be sure to “Dislike” the video by clicking the “Thumbs Down” icon. This little nutcase has disabled comments – most likely because so many people pointed out what an idiot he was for making his claims.
And if he “borrowed” a car, even if not from a “malicious” owner, he would be in jail, so what’s his problem. He got off lightly. He should learn from it rather than bad mouth the owner of the copyright.
Lawlessness and ignorance of reality..
Did I miss something? Did he just use an image as is? Alter it? Did he use a section of an image? I did a search for the guy and all I find was that he’s an e-commerce advisor and his “how you too can become a millionaire” pitch. And what about “Creative Commons”? I checked their home page and I haven’t a clue as to what they do or what they are telling those who visit/use their website.
Did I miss something? Did he just use an image as is? Alter it? Did he use a section of an image? I did a search for the guy and all I find was that he’s some e-commerce advisor and his “how you too can become a millionaire too” pitch. And what about “Creative Commons”? I checked their home page and I haven’t a clue as to what they do, how they do it or what they are telling those who visit/use their website.
That candy was just sitting in a bowl for anyone to take. Why should I get in trouble for reselling it when no one told me I was supposed to pay for it at the counter?! Seriously.
“I’m gonna talk to my cousin who’s A LAWYER.” OK… he’ll tell you the same thing your actual lawyer told you… (the one you ignored). You took a digital work that doesn’t belong to you. You sold that image. You violated copyright law. You owe the person who created it $150,000. The end.
holy crap this guy is easy to bait, I posted on one of his videos and he went after me like a rabid Trump supporter. Yes, it was that fun to do.
I like how he pulls up his shirt sleeve lamely to show off his stupid tats. LOL
How did he use the photo? Has anyone seen that?
It is certainly possible that a photographer would create images for the PURPOSE of having them show up in Google searches, just to tempt people into using photos and then SUE their a$$es for big money. Is that the photog’s business model? If so, that’s not art – that’s nonsense.
Why not name this photographer?
Sadly I am in a similar situation where a business stole not only my pictures but my entire website – pixel for pixel. I have tried to get help from government departments but none care. Being I ran my site to raise money for charities I dont have enough money to sue them. So I am left here to watch these pricks benefit from 10 years of my voluntary work :(
If you haven’t already done it, look up DMCA takedown notice, and submit one to the infringer’s hosting service. (Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law that allows you to report an infringer to the company that is hosting his page. It’s a US law but quite a few countries comply with valid takedowns.) Be sure you send the takedown to the real host, not to him or the site. To find the host, you need the “whois” info. icann, whoishostingthis, are a couple of sites that have that info. You will then need to look up the host and find their dmca agent. Many sites have it on their terms or legal info. The US Copyright office also has an extensive list of hosts’ dmca agent contact emails. Once you have done a couple takedown notices you get the hang of it and it’s not hard. Doing one takes a pretty short time. Sadly, many copyright owners have to send so many takedowns that it becomes quite a chore, especially if their stuff has gone viral and is up for sale all over the place. I hope you can get the offending site removed, but be aware you will have to stay vigilant, as they’ll find a new host if they really want to.
The message is do not use copyrighted material and only use non copyrighted images only no matter what is up on the net. The moral is don’t take anyone else’e shoes. And if you don’t want your shoes stolen secure them.
Clearly all us creatives are just sitting around on our asses, pulling our creative work out of thin air, for free & maliciously waiting to sue someone for stealing from us. Hey Mr Dan, i’m a youtube sensation, Dasilva, how much did it cost you to set up your little business? Did you go to uni? Did you do a graduate degree? Did you do hours of free work experience/internships/work for exposure? Did you buy lots of equipment & materials & spend years honing your skills? I did, which is why I expect people to pay for my skills, not get them for free.
And because of articles like this which link directly to the YouTube video, that video has nearly 200k views… which means he is collecting money on your criticism.
Just something to think about…
Any suggestions. I want to post postcards that are well over 50 years old. Is there any problem with posting them?
There is a big thing about this in the form of reaction videos. Many people have been shut down or told to change how they use the videos in this situations. Even though a band and label make no money from this work being put on youtube they tell you that you can’t use it. Now many of these people make money with the reaction posts. At the end of the day. If in doubt don’t or at least ask for permission. It’s safer that way.
Don’t watch the video (or use an Ad Blocker, if, for some reason, you absolutely have to).
Unfortunately, I think this moron is just trying to make some money back through the views of enraged photographers. It’s making the rounds through the photo community…
What an imbecile. I am a photographer and I register my images with the Library of Congress, so I can sue for actual losses PLUS punitive damages. Steal my work and I will gleefully sue you. YOU ARE A THIEF, so you have NOTHING to complain about.
I hope he gets sued again for slander. Complete asshat.
I’ve often wondered who the real “Douchey McDouchevitch” is…
Comments disabled on the video. Dangit. He probably got tired of being told how much on an entitled idiot he is.
That guy was paying for Facebook Ads to ‘teach you’ copywriting, just by watching his video ad on Facebook, I knew the kind of copycopier he is…
He’s a kid for me, a copycat. Nothing more than that.
Freakin’ Millenial! I bet he thought he should get a trophy too…
Glad the photog won. DaSilva is clueless. Permanent red flag on that name.
you big dummy…in fred sandford voice.
Everybody loves your work until they have to pay for it.
Lay off the cocaine little dude.
I got 3 words for you, Mr. Dasilva: Boo Flipping Hoo! You would think an entrepreneur would understand that protecting your personal assets from loss from fire, theft or lawsuits are as important as making a profit. Unless his business is an LLC/LLP, he’s getting hosed! He’s an idea! Don’t want deal with the hassle of copyright litigation, don’t steal images online! How hard is that! He also didn’t his cause by posting his latest video against the request of his attorney. That would put him in legal hot water, if he signed a non disclosure agreement. It’s clear he never learned the rule of holes! It states when you’re in one, stop digging!
This is a very poorly written article. We don’t get any information about what the picture was used for, so we don’t have any way to assess the case at all. All we have is about 1,000 words of bitchery. I get that photographers are mad that their work is stolen. But at least give us some INFORMATION instead of RAGE.
HAHAHAHAHAH! Simple rule – if you didn’t make it, and don’t have permission to use it – YOU SHOULDN’T BE SELLING IT!
So, if I go to his YouTube channel and take his videos, paste my face over his and make money off of it, he is not going ot be a “malicious YouTube videographer” and sue me for stealing his video? What a great “business model”, just take anyone else’s work, use it to make money and not worry about paying for it. I have always wanted to take the credit for “Thunderstruck” or “Roadhouse Blues”, but those “malicious” song writers, producers and bands won’t let me.
I just can’t grasp how some people think. Most criminals are the same. “I hate cops, they won’t let me do anything; always hassling me while I do 100 on the highway or steal someone’s car.” , But touch their stuff or interfere with their life and they want you shot.
Wow, he’s at a level of stupid that’s hard to even explain.
I love how he disabled comments on the video. My guess is it’s because he didn’t want to see hundreds of people telling him what an idiot he is! LOL!
Moron.
Every time a image is used it diminishes it’s value.No legit company wants to use an image that has been over exposed.Add to that that a stolen image is then stolen used over and over.If an image is used commercially that is stealing. That is how the creator would have made money.If you think there is a staff of people searching the internet for stolen images go ahead believe that.. I find my art that was stolen through “tin eye” or google image search .It’s also within the creator’s rights to shut down your web site until it’s removed. Artist get angry when their art is used commercially. The whole issue could be avoided if you contact the artist.Not that hard to find them Google search the image find the original source,contact information should be available.
Well you obviously talk some shit budd.. he doesnt say that about all photographers but there is some scammers just like in any industry.
He actually warns everyone on his videos and in All of courses about copywrite work. Hes very big on it so theres a reason he says that this one person in particular has scammed him on it.
Ok, but copyrighted work should contain a copyright mark or watermark. That lets people know this is not a public domain image. That’s not always the case and someone can do a search and deem it’s out in public domain when there’s no sign of ownership. I think that’s on the photographer to make sure their photo is clearly marked.
Wow. A lot of fighting going on down below. And I have an honest question I’m scared to ask. Anyone up for a non-judgmental answer to someone who already knows her own dumbness, so needs a different answer than that?
“Fair Use” Pertains to criticism or commentary: not profit. For instance, the image here of Denver Colorado corrupt attorney Daniel T. Goodwin can be freely used to expose his numerous criminal acts. http://wp.me/p8xm4H-5P
Dan is only a victim of his own stupidity. I notice he disabled comments on the video. Probably knows that he is going to get ripped apart.
Seems to me if you don’t want something stolen you wouldn’t put it out on the internet in a form that can be used until you get payment for it. You may as well leave your keys in your car with the doors open.
Hmmmmm. Let me think for two nano-seconds about what to call him – T.W.A.T. !
But he says he’s still doing it ???????
You sir are a D U M B A S S ! Someone created that content so why are
you just allowed to take it and use it without compensating the creator or at least asking his or her permission to use it?
Yes people need to be paid for work they do, its called employment; its
what we do to make money so we can live in our house, drive our car and
put food on the table. You don’t think this is right? Give us a
suitable alternative? You are so stupid, you don’t even realize how stupid you are.
Anyone with half brain knows not to publish any work of anyone else, unless they have an expressed permission to do so. Anyone who publishes their own work, rightfully presumes that their right to their property is respected, without the need to explicitly point it out at every turn. Anyone looking for free material to publish on their own site, knows to make an effort to find out what under what kind of license and under what conditions they can do so.
When you go to your neighborhood grocery store, do you presume that you can just take it, unless it is specifically and individually marked as property of Pathmark until you have paid for it?
I know that, and I am a dog!
could not happen to a nicer guy. lol refused to refund me for a bs course I was careless enough to invest in. 500$ down the drain. karma bitches!
Well if the photographer REALLY wants to market his photos OR just WAITING for someone to steal them…. that is the real question….. Its a fact that patent trolls exists so I would not doubt that copyright trolls exist. If the photographer really wanted to just make money the right way he could have just let it go with Dan or settle for a smaller amount…. just saying…