Photographer sues over stolen photo

[ourkind (Carlos)]

A photographer is suing 'Lowes' after they took a photo from her flickr photostream and printed it on t-shirts which were later sold.

It will be interesting whether she will win and be compensated accordingly.

Maybe she should have watermarked it, but would that have made a difference?

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...115-2cqh1.html

[ZeroID (Brent)]

Good on her !!!
I've had Motorsport and Rally pix pirated my old site off despite watermarks and warnings so she has my support for sure.

You go girl !!

[BPO]

What an idiotic headline. Nothing has been stolen. She still has her photo. If it's anything it's copyright infringement, not theft. I wish people would be prosecuted for what amount to false accusations and misrepresenting charges.

Copyright infringement is formally defined in law, and it's not defined as theft. And no, I'm not condoning or supporting copyright infringement, even though copyright law is now insanely out of control. I'm merely pointing out the incontrovertible facts.

[hotspur (Chris)]

hope the poor lady sees some satisfaction-not a good thing to happen,its not very nice have your work stolen like that,I've had that happen to me.'

But this is even worse-a larger company do that,and photography is her wok-pro photographers must not eat very much-its difficult enough to make a living,so this is really taking food from her.

Interesting to read the bit about website hosting etc.Another reason to have a good agent.

[BPO]

Originally Posted by hotspur

...[I]ts not very nice have your work stolen like that.

Unless they blowtorched her safe and ran off with the negatives, it wasn't theft. She still has the original, in whatever format.

We haven't heard their side of the story yet. Perhaps they found the copy they used on a public domain site. She herself may have uploaded it there. It may well be a case of non-deliberate, unwitting copyright violation.

But one thing we do know is that it wasn't theft, because nothing was actually stolen. Copying isn't theft. It may not be legal in many circumstances, but it's not theft.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Carlos,

Adding a watermark may have made them approach the photographer and discuss use of the image.

But, there's no need for copyright logos; copyright and ownership is implied.

H

[LewisM]

Intellectual theft is VERY real and VERY prevalent.

I have had a couple of my photos used by posers pretending they were theirs. A rather terse email or public ousting (like on a forum where they posted it) and the image, and the thief, usually disappears.

Lowes at least will be getting some much deserved negative feedback about this. Perhaps whoever designs the shirts -in China - just ripped an appropriate image after they were told ideas to create etc. No excuse though.

I watermark EVERYTHING I show online (unless it's bad ) and every photo I sell. My wedding shots get a watermark at 20% opacity (JUST see it), as do my portraits. I worked for 2 fashion labels last year at Melbourne Cup, and watermarked all images. Someone ripped one of the images, and tried posting it as theirs on Facebook... MOMENTARILY.

[tlgerdes (Trevor)]

It is speculation, but Lowes probably didnt perform the original copyright infringement. They just bought t-shirts with a picture on them, sold to them by some sweat shop in Asia that their buyer was doing business with. The assumption being, the company doing the manufacture has done things by the books.

[LewisM]

Exactly Trevor. Hopefully Lowes sends shockwaves through the Asian/Pacific Rim manufacturer

[BPO]

Originally Posted by LewisM

Intellectual theft is VERY real and VERY prevalent.

It's not theft. It's copyright infringement. Nobody has been deprived of their possessions. Copying is not theft, no matter the intent.

[Ausrock (Chris)]

BPO,

Are you a lawyer/solicitor?

[BPO]

Originally Posted by Ausrock

BPO,

Are you a lawyer/solicitor?

Why would I have to be either to know the law?

[Ausrock (Chris)]

Good Lord, I asked a simple bloody question .

[BPO]

Originally Posted by Ausrock

Good Lord, I asked a simple bloody question .

Sorry mate, I wasn't being cranky. But no, I'm not a lawyer/solicitor, although it doesn't alter the fact that, in almost ever western jurisdiction, copyright infringement is not legally defined as theft, and in fact is usually explicitly defined as not being so.

[Ausrock (Chris)]

Thanks mate.

That said, regardless of legal definitions, if someone creates a "work of art" be it a musical composition, painting, photograph, etc., they hold the copyright over that creation. If someone "takes" a copy of that creation for their own use/enjoyment most "artists" wouldn't object too much, BUT when it's being "taken" for commercial reasons it's a whole different ball game and it does equate to theft..........maybe another way to put it is "deprivation of income".

It's (the risk of theft) the prime reason I rarely put anything I record in our studio on the internet.

[LewisM]

I studied Business Law and Ethics at University. I can assure you that if the intellectual property is commercially sold without the author's consent, then it is defined as theft, and punishable as such.

[MrB (Simon)]

theft
the action or crime of stealing

steal
take (another person’s property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it

property
a thing or things belonging to someone

intellectual property
Intangible property that is the result of creativity, such as patents, copyrights, etc.

So, intellectual property is considered property, the taking of which without permission is considered stealing, the act of which is considered theft.
Seems to work.

[MortonH]

Well, I think we all agree that it's wrong, regardless of the strict legal definition.

Makes you think twice about posting any images online. Even if you think it's "rubbish" someone could turn it into a saleable image.

[LewisM]

Precisely.

Just as musicians and movie companies prosecute pirates, so you can with such things as photographs.

Proving original creation is on the author, so most photographers keep their original RAW images on file, indefinitely. I have 4 TB of RAW files for 2012 alone. Bought a new 3TB external a week ago, and it's already down 1 GB

[naskies (Dave)]

Originally Posted by LewisM

I studied Business Law and Ethics at University. I can assure you that if the intellectual property is commercially sold without the author's consent, then it is defined as theft, and punishable as such.

I'm no lawyer, and have not formally studied law, but it appears that our laws clearly define this as copyright infringement?

From the Copyright Amendment Act 2006, Schedule 1 Criminal Laws:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...6213/sch1.html

132AE Selling or hiring out infringing copy

Indictable offence

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person sells an article or lets an article for hire; and

(b) the article is an infringing copy of a work or other subject‑matter; and

(c) copyright subsists in the work or other subject‑matter at the time of the sale or letting.

(2) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than 550 penalty units or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.

Note 1: A corporation may be fined up to 5 times the amount of the maximum fine (see subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 ).

Note 2: If the infringing copy was made by converting the work or other subject‑matter from a hard copy or analog form into a digital or other electronic machine‑readable form, there is an aggravated offence with a higher maximum penalty under section 132AK.

Summary offence

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person sells an article or lets an article for hire; and

(b) the article is an infringing copy of a work or other subject‑matter and the person is negligent as to that fact; and

(c) copyright subsists in the work or other subject‑matter at the time of the sale or letting and the person is negligent as to that fact.

Penalty: 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.

(4) An offence against subsection (3) is a summary offence, despite section 4G of the Crimes Act 1914 .

Strict liability offence

(5) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person sells an article or lets an article for hire; and

(b) the article is an infringing copy of a work or other subject‑matter; and

(c) copyright subsists in the work or other subject‑matter at the time of the sale or letting.

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

(6) Subsection (5) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .