Can't Stop Him From Selling Stolen Images

Well pleading ignorance is no longer a valid excuse according to the law. Plus he has a history of this kind of activity. If you know about it, most likely others do too. One of these days someone is gonna bypass the cease and desist letter and go directly to suing him. People are getting very savvy now about how to report this kind of stuff. Plus there are several new agencies: Copyright Enforcers, Pixsy, and others who do the legal work for you and get payment for artists who have had their images stolen and used for profit.

So even asking 'is he just doing it right' on an artists' forum is pretty insulting. Just my opinion.

he isn't going to jail, its not that kind of law, but he could end up in court - one too many times of an oops i'm sorry, won't cut it for some. it may not cut it at all for some and he may still end up in court, a lawyer letter, a bill or a fine. he doesn't get that its not right, but money clouds people's visions. and the best way is to contact the artists yourself and have them all get together to run him off the net.

sometimes the only lesson is the hard one. and at some point he will get caught enough that he will learn it.

and taking it down - i wouldn't consider right, he's just saving his butt and preventing issues. but i know people that will make an example out of him.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

and the irony of the story is - he will make his own art, it will be stolen, and he will be annoyed and angry.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Your right, Joy, Saying, "is he doing it right" is pretty darn offensive. Sorry about that.
It's just that my, and so many other artist's, work gets taken and stolen all the time. I just am at the point of wondering if I should just bypass my careful and legal way of arting and join the legions of thieves who profit and profit and never see negative consequences of their actions...

My moral compass would never let me do that, Lesley. To me...it's pretty unthinkable. Plus I like to sleep at night. I always am up for helping my fellow/sister artists, not for hurting them.

the other thing you should warn him about is the use of famous faces like singers and such. because he would need permission from them to post as art. or the person belonging to that face has the right to sue that person using their face to make money. its a another part of the copyright law covered under the use of their own face. just make sure he's not doing that too.

anything stolen can be found. he may not know about reverse searching, and at some point he will get caught. he can laugh it off but the net is becoming more savvy as people are. and many are simply hiring internet lawyers to go after them. and i doubt they send take down notices, only bills.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Here is a thought

If he steals one of mine and I find out I will forward it to my service. My service will send him an invoice, not a cease and desist. He can pay that or he will be in court. Last one they sent out on my behalf cost the company a grand.

These services, including the legal representation are becoming more common and there are more people using them. IF they can prove that he has done this before and knows better expect that invoice to go up a lot more. Can he afford a ten grand judgement?

Yeah@ Mike. Oprah might care...
Or Drake...
Or Fox Television...
It's just that *he* doesn't care. He can't comprehend any consequences bad enough for him to stop. I guess he thinks, "I'm a kid (23yo) nothing bad can happen to me."

When I find my stuff spread across the internet - being shared and sold - I don't find any recourse available to me enough to stem the bleeding of lost time and work.
I want to help my friend, but her question is hammering home how useless it is for me to fight back against this sort of mind.

"(I made it clear that *that* wasn't going to happen) (morality is not something that registers with him, so we can just bypass that suggestion...)"

Ya, he probably is going to jail. Maybe not over stealing art images, but sooner of later he will probably graduate to something that will end him up in jail.

Take a look at this thread for several companies that will help you enforce your copyrights.

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2664095

TBH @Floyd, he seems to show a lot of sociopathic indicators so... yeah. Maybe. But that is so not what my friend wants for him!
I will JC, thank you. My work is getting nicked more and more now as my visibility (and sales) grow. It's time I really step up and start protecting myself.

23 years is not a kid..... He is an adult and his actions will will effect the rest of his life.

on the topic of getting sued... out of curiosity, did you get permission from the singers to sell their likeness? because they can sue, just so you know.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

I have been, Mike.
Working on music videos got me to artists; artists to managers, managers to agents and labels.
Everyone's been so nice and helpful so far and I've been really open and clear with them. (I have signed my share of their paperwork too. Of course I have a lawyer look over the forms first.)

So far, his actions are bringing him reward. It's all good and no bad. He is a successful entrepreneur. How willing is he to change his profit model because some find it objectionable? He's going to say "other people are doing it, why can't I?"

He doesn't sound militant. When he gets a C&D he takes down the work and says "sorry" instead of "Take a hike." It's a fun game.

Ultimately, this is small potatoes. He's not going to court. There's no money in it for lawyers. But on the million to one chance that he gets a judgment against him for $10K, what are the chances he can pay it?

Lets say he CAN pay it, and does. If he's liquid enough to pay $10K judgments does he stop, or is that just a cost of doing business?


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Report him to his ISP. They'll make him take down his site, may just shut it down for him. Most ISPs have agreements that prohibit infringement, especially commercial. If he's using a POD like this one, they will also take issue with infringement.

Stealing other peoples works on the net has become a hobby/habit forming for that 23yo man. just very alarming I think he needs a psychiatrist instead!

Yes, it seems like those whose work he steals should go for the web host and skip contacting this person. That should get the site taken down. He'll probably just go to another host but that will be a bit more work than just taking down an image. He might be able to move to an overseas host if it becomes too much trouble to host in the US (assuming this is in the US) and still pull it off.

it really depends on the sites he goes on. if he sells here or other pod's, they will simply remove him. being that young i doubt he's printing it all himself. while he might not go to court, he won't have to. the internet lawyers may still go after him. they don't need to know how old he is, he has parents, and getting letters from lawyers, even if he doesn't pay them should be a wake up call.

right now a local warning from you isn't enough. because he doesn't think he will ever get caught and if he does, nothing at all will happen to him. until it does. like when mp3's became illegal and kids went to jail over that. while it was a little different, it wasn't much different because this kid is selling them again.

the next question is -- does he have any of my stuff?


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

memes - I always wonder how many of these shared memes are from misappropriated photos. Or are they legitimate stock licenses? In any case the guy could find himself up against a very large and very well funded stock agency.

i think most memes are from stolen images. it depends how clear it is. like just recently this poor guy who shot himself in a mirror, some shopped out his ipad and replace it with a quran, added a bomb vest. and it went viral to the point it was published in a real paper as a real thing. memes usually come about from a weird item. however if the inventor of the meme get's it copyrighted and then sells that to a stock company, that could be something. however locating the people that stole it, the original people i think would be really hard to do, being that its spread everywhere. of course if the kid takes credit, it makes it much easier.

if a place like getty found out - i don't think they care if he has money or not.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

"Lets say he CAN pay it, and does. If he's liquid enough to pay $10K judgments does he stop, or is that just a cost of doing business? '

Exactly what Wal-Mart answered on 60-Minutes when the confronted the on all of their predatory pricing law suits they kept losing.

When asked when they were going to stop, the guy said when it stops being profitable even after the fines they pay.

His contention, and he was one of their top lawyers, was that they were not doing anything morally wrong and that a lot of people were benefiting. He said the law needed to be changed and that until it was, people were benefiting and as long as it remained profitable they would keep doing it.

Polluters are the same. More cost effective to keep polluting and pay the fines.

Now this could be a good argument for hiring a screener for images coming on POD sites. If the site he is posting one is getting banned by Google than that's a real problem that hurts the bottom line.

He won't change his ways until it hurts his bottom line. And then he won't change because it's the right thing to do, he'll change because it'll help his profits. Some people's ethics or rather lack of them, is driven by profits first, right vs. wrong second.

The ISP will tear down his site if the person/people with the copyright object.

Dave

"The ISP will tear down his site if the person/people with the copyright object."

That's a complete fantasy. The copyright holder(s) need to submit a properly filled out DMCA notice. The ISP is then required to remove the named image(s). They are not in any way authorized or permitted to take down the site.

If the site owner files a counter-notice, the ISP is required by law to restore the images. If the copyright owner(s) wish to pursue it further, he/she/they must then submit proof to the ISP that they have filed a lawsuit against the alleged infringer.

Just think of the pandemonium that could be caused if a simple objection from concerned citizens (i.e. competition, those with an ax to grind, third party busy bodies, rumor mongers, etc) could get someone's site removed.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

My question would be:

Is he merely OFFERING these images for sale, ... or is he ACTUALLY SUCCESSFULLY selling these images in a sufficient quantity to amount to any significant income/basis for assessing "damages"?

He is doing what some hotel chains do routinely in terms of correcting complaints ... apologizing, doing nothing, and carrying on with dysfunctional business as usual. ... This appears to be a practical tactic to evade fixing something, .. and apparently it works ... sadly. ... Just come up with a very well worded apology, and dish it out prescriptively as the solution, INSTEAD OF FIXING THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM.

As for the kid and the images, ... here's a thought: ... maybe art also is the ability to USE the art. ... Being able to USE the art is also an art.

If he is succeeding at selling the images consistently, then he is an artist of sales, whereas the person who created the image is an artist of making an image.

Where does ART really stop and end with ONE person? Who made this rule? ART can transcend the original image maker in many ways and in may other people's hands.

If the image creator has not succeeded in selling the image, and somebody else DOES succeed in selling the image, then is the ultimate seller the more practical ARTIST who claims a sort of secondary ownership by sheer action? ... just tossing out the questions here.

Dan, it depends on the site. I have friends who run a hosting company and they shut a site down entirely for offering pirated downloads of movies. It was a violation of the hosting agreement. They got one complaint letter from one production company and poof. No more site.

and i think once an ISP knows they have someone taking things or selling stolen goods, they are now sort of hosting something they now know is bad. and they could be coupled up in a lawsuit if found out. now the ISP won't just take it down without proof though. just like anything else you need proof. and depending on the TOS there, even if you paid to be there, they can pull your site if they think they need to.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Cynthia, I'm sure that happens in cases of massively obvious violations involving large data transfers. Your friends would be in trouble, however, for pulling a site based on an undocumented copyright claim for a handful of images.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

it really depends how many claims there are and how often this has to happen. if your always writing to them, they could write of the site.

---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

I tried to get a website taken down for false advertising of a business that no longer existed physically or financially.

The website hosting company told me that they would have their people look into it.

I followed up with all manner of proof.

I was eventually told that the hosting company did not handle things like this.

As for the guy selling the internet images, ... is he REALLY selling or just OFFERING images for sale? ... Has he really sold anything at all? ... How much? ... How much has he actually earned from his ... "selling"? ... Is THAT amount (if anything) really worth any worry?

In my mind, when it comes to stuff like this, there's no cutoff age for parenting. He's 23, and is clearly making some terrible judgements that could get him into financial trouble. If it were my kid, lying and cheating for a living, and in public no less, I'd be so far up in his business he'd have to move to get away from me. And then I'd just find him again. :)

23 is not 40. He may be an adult by definition, but clearly isn't acting like a responsible one.

"In my mind, when it comes to stuff like this, there's no cutoff age for parenting. He's 23, and is clearly making some terrible judgements that could get him into financial trouble.'

The cut off age for parenting these days is the day the kid enters kindergarten. From that point on the parents are willing to let society do the parenting.

Not sure some agressive DA could not build a case against the parent for letting it happen right on their nose.

Cynthia,

I fully agree with you. Parenting is a nonstop job. But for that 23 year old someone or he or probably both his parents and he failed a long time ago.

Floyd no kid comes out perfect regardless of what the parents do. But stealing, Dan I am not sorry, is stealing.

Also Dan I never implied that the infringement claim should not be undocumented, of course it should be.

Dave

"This has been going on for years and, since he complies with each cease and desist, everyone is happy and doesn't pursue it further once their property is pulled down."

If this has been going on for years and everyone is happy, where is the problem? If there was serious infringement, there would be serious problems.

It sounds like a family member doesn't approve of this young mans business. But if you read this forum with any regularity, you'll see there are lots of mom/wives/husbands/boyfriends/girlfriends who are actively trying to get their family members to pursue some other activity. If you're successful at something, someone isn't going to like it. Guaranteed.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

i'm sure that's not the reason why someone is not liking it. they aren't liking it because they are much more aware at potential consequences of the actions of the kid. i'm sure they aren't putting him down because he is successful at it. if they were really jealous they wouldn't warn him, they would tell on him.

everyone is happy because he and others are simply too naive to understand.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

He's most likely operating on borrowed time. Sooner or later he's going to infringe on the wrong company and get sued for damages.

Kids aren't fully "cooked" until the late twenties. Still, having a moral compass starts much earlier in life. There's something going on mentally with someone who constantly tries (and succeeds) to get away with wrongdoing. Criminals have something gone awry mentally.

I don't know this guy, just what I've read from Lesley, but he's not a criminal. Far from it. Artists here get so heavy handed and judgmental. Geeez, let's just rush in and declare someone we don't know a criminal and mentally unstable.

Few people in the real world know diddly squat about infringement. It's "trade talk" among image makers, and it's blown all out of proportion in forums like this.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Karma's a bitch. We're all standing on the ground of our own actions.

no not criminal - infringing. he's potentially taking other images and profiting off of it. i'm not sure how you can directly copyright a meme. but if he's getting cease and desist and he's still doing it - well that should say something.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com