Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Photographer Threatened With Legal Action After Asserting His Copyright

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the picture-of-surprise dept.

Your Rights Online 667

New submitter JamieKitson writes "Photographer Jay Lee got more than he bargained for after sending some DMCA takedown notifications out to hosts of sites using one of his pictures. One Candice Shwagger accused him of everything from conspiracy over local sheriff elections to child abuse. Since Candice is now threatening legal action, Jay has said he'll take down the post, so here's a snap shot. After reading the story, I checked for use of my own pictures and found one of them being used on a review site without even a credit."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How (5, Interesting)

tsa (15680) | about 2 years ago | (#40110797)

How do I find out who uses my pictures on the internet?

Re:How (5, Informative)

Ken_g6 (775014) | about 2 years ago | (#40110835)

Well, TinEye [tineye.com] can find pictures on the internet that match ones you upload.

Re:How (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40110905)

Also Google image search now has that same function if you know where to look

Re:How (5, Informative)

John Bokma (834313) | about 2 years ago | (#40111023)

Enter the URL of your picture in Google's image search and it will also find similar/same.

Re:How (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111333)

Google retains your images for their own nefarious ends though.

Re:How (3, Interesting)

Rasperin (1034758) | about 2 years ago | (#40111449)

Muwahahahahaha I can control life with this magical photo of you, and this wedding photo of you kissing your spouse will destroy your life! Careful, I might even say your name three times because we all know there's magic in names!

Re:How (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#40111037)

Tineye... yeah. It works, on occasion.

Re:How (1)

tsa (15680) | about 2 years ago | (#40111045)

Thank you!

Re:How (5, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40111439)

Here's the woman's website, with all the nasty hateful material she posted about the photographer (who retracted the DMCA).

Let's slashdot her:
http://chicksandpolitics.com/ [chicksandpolitics.com]

Re:How (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111573)

Put in my 20 page loads, each while holding shift to avoid using cache.

Re:How (3, Funny)

Bodhammer (559311) | about 2 years ago | (#40110847)

Try googling Google Image Search...

Re:How (3, Funny)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about 2 years ago | (#40111137)

Try googling Google Image Search...

Hey dude, I heard you like Google so I.... aaah, screw it. I can't stand that meme anyway.

Re:How (-1, Troll)

durrr (1316311) | about 2 years ago | (#40110853)

I'm just here to occupy a top slot and say that the submitter is a terrible photographer.

Re:How (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111139)

He's better at photography than spelling. Unless you would really like to talk about plagerism.

Re:How (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40110855)

Google image search

Re:How (0)

v1 (525388) | about 2 years ago | (#40110869)

How do I find out who uses my pictureson the internet?

http://images.google.com/ [google.com] of course

Re:How (5, Informative)

ubergeek65536 (862868) | about 2 years ago | (#40111099)

You can drag and drop an image from your desktop onto the Google image search. I was amazed at how fast and accurate it is. It looks like it doesn't even need to be an exact match.

I searched for a photo of a piece of graffiti from a wall outside of San Francisco and Google found a few other people that had taken a photo of the same wall.

Candice side (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111407)

I'm on Candice's side. I mean grow up. You put a picture on the internet and other people used it. Big deal. Get over yourself. If you don't want to share, don't put it on the internet. So now everyone needs to jump through legal hoops to share things? Ridiculous.

Re:Candice side (4, Insightful)

BronsCon (927697) | about 2 years ago | (#40111543)

He put a picture on the internet to share it with others who might want to *SEE* it. He did want to share his picture, he simply didn't want someone else claiming it as their own without compensation. Seems fair enough to me.

-1 troll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40110813)

This article has got to be a troll. "Can you believe, I found my own work in the hands of pirates, right on the internet," he gushed. Soon, though, all was well in Whoville.

Confused someones dmced the plot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40110843)

Whats / wheres the story?

Re:Confused someones dmced the plot (-1, Flamebait)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#40110929)

Its a story about some nobody who got upset because he published his photograph on the internet and someone else used it. boo fucking hoo.

Re:Confused someones dmced the plot (1, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40111057)

He has a radio show on FM radio. He's less of a nobody than you are.

Re:Confused someones dmced the plot (1)

fafaforza (248976) | about 2 years ago | (#40111269)

I think being on FM might actually be counter to your social status.

Re:Confused someones dmced the plot (-1, Troll)

xrayspx (13127) | about 2 years ago | (#40111419)

Some nobody who parked his car in his driveway, then got all upset when someone took it. boo fucking hoo

Some nobody who painted a canvas and got all upset when someone took it off his wall. boo fucking hoo.

amidoinitrite?

Irony (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40110851)

When the first phrase of the offending article is "Let's talk about plagiarism..."

Plagiarist accuses plagiarist (in linked article) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40110867)

It is hilarious that the linked article on the restaurant review site opens with, "LET'S talk about plagiarism, innovation or the often very small adaptations of an idea that pass as evolution in the restaurant business," and then proceeds to violate copyright with its banner photograph!

Photographer should say "Go ahead" (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40110871)

"Go ahead and sue me." The infringing person would likely never follow through, or if he did, lose the case and a lot of money. ----- Just like that Oregon Newspaper editor who tried to steal an article from an online reporter. He too threatened to sue but backed down (and paid $500 to the reporter), because he knew he was guilty-guilty-guilty. Downloading something for personal enjoyment is one thing; earning wealth off the back of a worker's labor w/o paying them is entirely different (and evil).

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40110959)

The correct thing to do if you want to ruin someone's life is to claim that they're a sex abuser, not a copyright infringer. Focus particularly on any children you have about you. Speak loudly enough and you'll have ruined their life before they're even arrested and investigated.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (4, Informative)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#40111033)

Well, from what I gather of the ordeal, Jay Lee didn't want to cost Shwagger a lot of money, he just wanted to assert his copyright. He quickly realized that she does seem to do non-profit work for disabled children and he told GoDaddy to reinstate her sites while he worked it out with her.

In other words, he went through the established legal means, was informed of a situation where someone felt unduly harmed, and did his level best to resolve the situation quickly and fairly. All in all, I like this guy -- asserting his rights without being a douche about it.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40111141)

He quickly realized that she does seem to do non-profit work for disabled children

That's no excuse. The correct response is "Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize this was an issue. I do non-profit work for disabled children, is there any way we can work out an accomodation?"

The fact that Shwagger went straight to threats of lawsuits indicates that despite the fact that she works with disabled children, she's still a terrible person.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (4, Insightful)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#40111251)

I agree. I don't think /she/ was being reasonable; I was just saying that what Jay Lee did here was the "good-guy Greg" alternative to saying "Go ahead and sue me."

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (-1, Flamebait)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 2 years ago | (#40111453)

Uh, no, the straight to the DMCA is a douche bag move. Contacting the people and politely ask them to take it down is the 'good guy' move. He didn't do that.

He went legal first without even talking to her. Sure it's his right, but so is ambulance chasing; doesn't make him a 'good guy' though.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111569)

That works if you only have a few sites; this guy's image was on page after page of sites...

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (2, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40111337)

People are human. If I discovered all 14 of my sites were taken down, while I'm trying to raise money for Special needs, I'd probably respond in a similar angry fashion. I remember how angry I became when Youtube yanked my video offline..... and besides she apologized to the photographer for her outburst. She also commented:

"The fair use doctrine permits nonprofits more leeway than for profit businesses." - That's not true but it's understandable if she believes it is and thought no harm was done.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (5, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40111513)

And once again, I have to change my previous comment. Here's what this woman emailed privately and posted publicly about the photographer:

Private - "Now that the issue is resolved and you have your precious image back, do not ever bother me again. You cost me thousands in billable time and I could sue you. You are fortunate it came back up because as usual, an emergency call came in from a very disabled client needing help and it is substantial as to time/effort/predicted fees. Had you not done the right thing, you would have hurt a lot of people, but most pathethically, a MR girl with the mind of a 4 year old who needs my help. Do not harass or stalk me on Twitter or FB or otherwise. I am done and you better be. Donâ(TM)t make me vomit, your lawyer."

PUBLIC: "Jay Lee Blows It
I do not believe this many coincidences could come together and be legit. So many things dont add up or sound the alarms, I just canâ(TM)t bring myself to buy the innocent victim role Jay Lee vomits everywhere. Jay Leeâ(TM)s skittish inconsistency, sincere, desperate, apologetic (clearly understanding nothing was knowingly done to him, after he saw all of the wreckage his wrecklessness caused), terror (induced by reading my letter? Realizing he had made a big mistake), inexplicable stalking, bait & switch images on Flickr, removing âoehot potatoâ image and refusing to sell at opportune time, with my letter thrashing him, sent the fear of God through him.

"I do not believe in coincidence. Even if I did, the number of âoecoincidencesâ that occurred in this shameless, disgusting story, make me quite certain that Adrian Garcia and/or Alan Bernstein and his minions at the Chronicle conspired to have the Help Desk guy / techie, Jay Lee (creepy), falsely accuse me of copyright infringement and use his tech abilities to determine which website was hosting the remaining sites so that Garcia could take them all down."

B.I.T.C.H.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111519)

Yes, but the only person you'd have to be angry at would be yourself for being so stupid as to steal someone else's copyrighted works.

This guy is a spineless coward. I'd sue that dumb bitch for copyright infringement for each instance of the image that she used and for libel.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111551)

Why do you ALWAYS troll?

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111465)

She's also a marketing consultant for lawyers; I'm sure her clients would love to hear about her pladgerism.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40111215)

I take back my previous comment, after I saw the owner is a disabled person trying to help other disabled persons. It is better to remove the DMCA and work things out perston-to-person. THEN after the campaign and special needs olympics is over, if the woman is still being difficult, file a new DMCA. "Her websites included a blog which seems to be on a crusade to get someone named Louis Guthrie elected as Harris County Sheriff while taking pot shots at incumbent Adrian Garcia.

"To make matters even more interesting, Candice Shwaggerâ(TM)s list of Web sites also include some dedicated to promoting and supporting special needs children. A fact I was unaware of when I filed my complaint, but a fact that would come back to bite me later. And, as it turned out, all of these sites are linked together as far as GoDaddy is concerned which resulted in all 14 of them going down after I filed my complaint.

"Of course, I had no idea. I have been sending DMCA take-down notices on so many sites it was becoming an cookie cutter assembly line process and I was not paying all that close attention. But an email message showed up in my inbox that made me pay attention. It was a notification that someone had commented on the photo in my Flickr account. The comment was from Candice Shwagger:

"I hope you sleep well knowing you are depriving disabled children of free legal help and throwing a wrench in a good manâ(TM)s political career potentially while slicing the jugular of a mom with special needs who is a partially disabled atty and did not earn one dime off your photo."

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (-1, Troll)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 2 years ago | (#40111505)

I have been sending DMCA take-down notices on so many sites it was becoming an cookie cutter assembly line process and I was not paying all that close attention.

So he filed legally binding documents without reading them through or investigating the consequences. Technically invalid DMCA's are supposed to be perjury...now his may have been accurate and he just decided 'this time' to call it back, but if we have this law it needs to have teeth against abuse.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#40111253)

"Go ahead and sue me." The infringing person would likely never follow through, or if he did, lose the case and a lot of money. ----- Just like that Oregon Newspaper editor who tried to steal an article from an online reporter. He too threatened to sue but backed down (and paid $500 to the reporter), because he knew he was guilty-guilty-guilty. Downloading something for personal enjoyment is one thing; earning wealth off the back of a worker's labor w/o paying them is entirely different (and evil).

Jay Lee sure as shit should have done exactly that. Look at the offender, an "elite attorney marketing boutique;" in other words, a cadre of arrogant assholes out to pretty up another cadre of arrogant assholes. This is nothing more than a little fun by this woman and her attorney friends, who think that taking 5 minutes to string together some legal babble that it took them 3 years of intensive studying to memorize. If he stood up for himself he would have pummeled her in court, but all too often bluffs like this never get called out because people have some sort of ingrained intimidating reflex around attorneys.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead" (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#40111295)

This is nothing more than a little fun by this woman and her attorney friends, who think that taking 5 minutes to string together some legal babble that it took them 3 years of intensive studying to memorize should entitle them to get away with whatever they want.

Suppose I should finish my own thought. Damned tempting submit button...

As expected... (1)

kramerd (1227006) | about 2 years ago | (#40110875)

Aaaaaannnndddd..../.ed

Any other link?

they are giving you credit now (1)

drkich (305460) | about 2 years ago | (#40110891)

at the bottom of the article, in bold black letters, they give you credit now.

Re:they are giving you credit now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111041)

The source imagine on flikr is "all rights reserved" with an option to license. I don't think an attribution at the bottom makes it OK, unless they've since licensed it.

I think the real story was the first one though, where the person that used a photo without permission accused the photographer of child abuse and election fraud in response to a DMCA request.

I always wondered if big sites really license all the photos they use, or are operating on some kind of fair use I don't know about. Properly licensing photos off the usual sites (say, getty) is usually absurdly expensive and the terms can be awful.

Like, it's $70 to use this photo online and you have to take it offline in 3 months. How could anyone really ever make proper use of something like that on a blog post?

Re:they are giving you credit now (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 2 years ago | (#40111229)

I always wondered if big sites really license all the photos they use, or are operating on some kind of fair use I don't know about.

The really, really big sites have proper departments for this who have media teams that have running subscriptions to all the major stock photography places, have flickrs / deviantart / etc. searches for images that can be used commercially readily set up, etc.
Some may still fall through the cracks, of course.

But for the smaller ones.. really, anything that pops up on google images is fair game. Copy. Paste. Done.
The odds that the actual author ever finds that you used their image are small. The odds that even when they do, they'll care, are small. The odds that when they care, they'll care enough to do something about it, are small. The odds that said 'something' is issue a take-down notice, is small. In the case you get a take-down notice: the impact on you, is small. In case they want to strike a licensing deal, you can generally also just take it down, because the odds that they'd want to start having lawyers talk is, you guessed it, small.

You can't really blame this mentality. The general hive mind of the internet user is that doing this is perfectly fine when it comes to downloading songs, TV episodes and movies, and sharing them with your group of 10,000 'friends'. That same hive mind says that anything you post to the internet is pretty much public. Don't want people seeing it, knowing about it, copying it - then don't post it to the internet.
So you can't really expect people to suddenly believe it's wrong to take some random picture somebody posts to the internet and put them on their own site (whether used commercially or not).

Worse, if you try talking to one of the more nefarious companies - think broadcasters, news websites, etc. - don't be entirely surprised if they suggest that you should be thankful that your image was used, and that the added exposure to you is nothing but free advertising that you should attempt to monetize. They stay just shy of suggesting that you should pay them, and just shy of anything that could be used as ammo by your own lawyer if it were to go that far.

Re:they are giving you credit now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111385)

That's good to know. I asked primarily because I recently made a (hopefully, eventually) commercial blog for someone, and they want to start wholesale copying peoples photos.

When I said, "hey you've got to license those for commercial use" they looked at me like I was crazy. Subsequent searches on the stock sites confirmed that licensing one photo, properly, for every blog post, is really just insane. Your annual budget for putting a single photo on each post would be in the tens of thousands of dollars. It doesn't make sense for a site that might make a couple hundred dollars in a year.

I guess the problem is, nobody wants a major news outlet using one of their photos 800 million times for $1, but there's no license for someone that's going to get less than 1,000 views over the lifetime of the site, but really would prefer to license it properly.

Re:they are giving you credit now (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 years ago | (#40111563)

Worse, if you try talking to one of the more nefarious companies - think broadcasters, news websites, etc. - don't be entirely surprised if they suggest that you should be thankful that your image was used, and that the added exposure to you is nothing but free advertising that you should attempt to monetize.

Many years ago I came across a broadcaster in a distant city that was hosting a web page that included an img tag (not just a link, it loaded the image) to one of my images. Not only did they not attribute it to me or the research group that produced it, they attributed it to someone else altogether. Email reporting the issue went unanswered.

It wasn't long before I learned how to use the Referer header data in Apache to selectively send that one referrer an image advertizing an ABC television show. Oh, did I mention, the broadcaster was affiliated with NBC.

As a long term solution, I started watermaking all the publicly available images with the organization logo in a prominent place. "Monetizing" the product wasn't a viable option, so their free "advertising", which actually advertised a different outfit, was useless.

Very, very interesting - but.... (2, Insightful)

registrations_suck (1075251) | about 2 years ago | (#40110907)

I found TFA very interesting. Sounds like the lady is off her rocker. However - the bottom line is that if you don't want someone to "take" your stuff, don't post it on-line. Sort of like, "don't leave your wallet on your dashboard with the windows down". Should you be able to? Sure. Will you be able to, without someone taking it? No. Should you be surprised when you come back and your wallet is gone? No. Should you be surprised when you post stuff on-line and someone uses it for their own purposes? No. Should you be able to address the issue? Sure. Can you save yourself a lot of headache by not posting your stuff on-line in the first place? You betcha.

Practical advice for the guy in TFA? If you're going to post your photos on-line, put a great big watermark on it that says something to the effect of, "If you want to use this photo, YOU NEED TO PAY ME! Email whatever@ whatever.com for details!"

Re:Very, very interesting - but.... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111151)

Practical advice for the guy in TFA? If you're going to post your photos on-line, put a great big watermark on it that says something to the effect of, "If you want to use this photo, YOU NEED TO PAY ME! Email whatever@ whatever.com for details!"

Here's some additional practical advice:
- Find out the website / phone number / office of the bar agency in your state; such as Wisconsin [wisbar.org]
- Research there to find out attorneys that specialize in intellectual property law, specifically copyright law
- Meet with these attorneys and find out what their rates are
- Pay your preferred attorney a retainer
- Find your copyrighted photographs being used for commercial gain with permission (note: this is potentially *criminal* copyright infringement)
- Have your attorney sue the copyright infringer (up to $150,000 per photograph infringed)
- Win in court; get paid (aka: PROFIT!!)

Your attorney can also give you helpful hints on what to include in the watermark (as suggested by parent).
The right stuff in the watermark can make the difference in court, especially if the infringer tries to remove/obfuscate the watermark instead of paying.

Re:Very, very interesting - but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111421)

if you don't want someone to "take" your stuff, don't post it on-line

Useless advice. If I want to post my photos on my website (or sell a use license to somebody else to do display them on his website), I should not have to put a big watermark on them.

The same rules apply to meatspace and cyberspace - if it is not yours, do not take it without permission. Simple.

oh shut up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40110923)

You don't deserve to have been born clever; you don't deserve to have been born healthy; you don't deserve to have been born in a stable nation; hell, you don't deserve to have been born at all. Nor do you deserve some protection for the fact that you could assemble a series of 0s and 1s in a particular order.

Get over yourself. Contribute what you can and be a good guy about it, and others will contribute likewise. The world's in the shit state it is because everyone thinks they're entitled to protection.

Re:oh shut up (2)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#40111185)

I feel I have to address this one: Jay Lee /was/ being a good guy about it. He did the legally correct move (file a DMCA) and worked with those that responded to find mutually agreeable terms. In this specific case someone responded that she felt harmed and he quickly told GoDaddy to reinstate her sites while he worked it out with her.

So you're mad at him for doing things as the law suggests and then going beyond the law to provide that which he wasn't required to? I mean, he /could/ have started by individually contacting the admin of each site but why should he be required to spend even /more/ resources to help those who had /broken/ the law from suffering for it?

Re:oh shut up (0, Flamebait)

DamnStupidElf (649844) | about 2 years ago | (#40111285)

"good guy" and "file a DMCA" don't quite fit in the same paragraph, unless it also includes some form of negation. Seriously. Would you use RICO against an individual who wronged you? Would you send them to Guantanamo? Certain things just aren't done by "good people" even if they happen to be temporarily legal.

Re:oh shut up (4, Insightful)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#40111533)

The DMCA, when properly used, is a pretty good process:
1. File DMCA to hosting provider
2. Hosting provider removes access to offensive file and informs uploader
3. Uploader can respond
4. Purported owner and uploader resolve situation if necessary

The key here is that you have to be sure you have the right file before starting at step 1, which Jay Lee did. This all went tits-up when GoDaddy decided to shut down all of the related sites instead of just that one resource, but that's not the DMCA or Jay Lee's fault.

Now the big problem with the DMCA is that it's very easy to abuse. But that's not what Mr. Lee was doing with it since he only targeted exactly what belonged to him.

As for RICO, if an individual qualified as a "criminal organization" then hell yes I'd want RICO used against him.

Re:oh shut up (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111541)

"good guy" and "file a DMCA" don't quite fit in the same paragraph, unless it also includes some form of negation. Seriously. Would you use RICO against an individual who wronged you? Would you send them to Guantanamo? Certain things just aren't done by "good people" even if they happen to be temporarily legal.

You're comparing filing a DMCA request to protect ownership of your creative works to charging someone with racketeering or sending them to an out-of-country prison known to use inhuman tactics? Seriously? And that's being modded "Interesting"?

Wow.

Re:oh shut up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111507)

And you're not man enough to put your name to your comment? Get over yourself....

Photographer doesn't know how to hire an attorney (1)

eclectro (227083) | about 2 years ago | (#40110933)

How is this news??

Re:Photographer doesn't know how to hire an attorn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111157)

Because not everything in this world needs a lawyer.
I've challenged the use of my pictures with the DMCA even though I live in a country that does not have it.
I've even had one person threaten to 'sue my ass off and if that don't work, I'll pepper your ass with buckshot'.
I simply sent the DMCA Takedown to his hosting company.

  I have the full documentary evidence to prove that I was in the place where the picture was taken at the time it was taken. So even if he sued me he wouldn't win a bent penny. How do I know that the picture is mine? Well less than 100 people a year visit this place and everyone of them has their names recorded. His name? Not on the list.
Look up South Georgia on the map. A Slam dunk case for me.

Since the site is down... (3, Interesting)

zmughal (1343549) | about 2 years ago | (#40110957)

Jay Lee also hosts a technology radio show out of Houston called Technology Bytes [geekradio.com] .

unworkable business model (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40110967)

If your business model is based on artificial scarcity in the world of nearly free copying of information, you need a new business model. You are making the same mistake as the RIAA.

Re:unworkable business model (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#40111205)

I don't know about the submitter but Jay Lee doesn't seem to be doing photography as his main work. Also, the RIAA is an unnecessary middle-man. Jay Lee is an actual content producer. He /should/ be /fairly/ compensated for his work if people want to use it.

Ludicrous (4, Insightful)

dbarron (286) | about 2 years ago | (#40110985)

Being a semi-pro photographer myself (and facing the same problem), I find the woman in the original article ludicrous.
There's a lot of problems with trying to share your photos with the world (under copyright) and people using them w/o permission. I know my own photos are being used (and quite often abused) all over the place.
The photos aren't very pleasing to look at if they have watermarks all over them obscuring detail:(
Not that I don't freely allow many non-profits (including zoos) to use my photos all over the world and that I have certainly been paid for legal use of some few.

Re:Ludicrous (2)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | about 2 years ago | (#40111297)

Being a semi-pro photographer myself (and facing the same problem), I find the woman in the original article ludicrous.
There's a lot of problems with trying to share your photos with the world (under copyright) and people using them w/o permission. I know my own photos are being used (and quite often abused) all over the place.
The photos aren't very pleasing to look at if they have watermarks all over them obscuring detail:(
Not that I don't freely allow many non-profits (including zoos) to use my photos all over the world and that I have certainly been paid for legal use of some few.

The woman is paranoid, and the photographer was within his rights. Know that I'm not arguing that point. That said, this is a clear example of the problems with the DMCA. Had the photographer contacted the website admin and requested the picture be taken down or permissions be negotiated before submitting a formal takedown, this whole situation may have been avoided (depending on just how crazy the woman is).

I understand that Go Daddy is the one who goes overboard and just shuts down every single website (including the ones not hosting the picture) from the owner until the situation is resolved. But considering that they're required to take immediate action, that is probably the most cost-effective way of doing things.

Honestly, the entire concept of immediate take-down is flawed. What should happen once you submit a DMCA request is that the person violating gets notified, and has a chance to take down / negotiate for permission / respond with a counter-notice before the website is taken down. If a counter-notice is file, the content does not get taken down, and whether infringement exists is decided by the courts. If they do not respond in a reasonable period, then the provider can remove access to the content, but not before. After all, if the counter-notice is valid, any amount of time the site was down would be unjust.

I'm no lawyer, but I would assume the woman actually has a case against Go Daddy (not the photographer), for taking down the non-infringing sites. Especially if she really did suffer financial damages.

is it irony...? (1)

irving47 (73147) | about 2 years ago | (#40110993)

I read his post and it seemed well-thought out... I've had people rip off my entire website, once upon a time. They changed the background image and lo and behold, it was "his site."
So what I don't get is in the post previous to that one, linked at the top of the page, is him taking pictures where he himself says it's forbidden/not allowed?
(I'd disagree with the signs, too, but still...)

Well, of course... (5, Funny)

j-b0y (449975) | about 2 years ago | (#40111031)

Elrond: We cannot use the DCMA. That we now know too well. It belongs to Sauron and was made by him alone, and is altogether evil.

LET'S talk about plagiarism (1)

acklenx (646834) | about 2 years ago | (#40111051)

I love how the article that use's Jamie's unattributed pictures starts:

    LET'S talk about plagiarism...

Going down, down, down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111069)

Let us all bow our heads and say a few prayers over the scorch mark on the rack that used to be the baldheretic.com webserver, hoster of the linked original article.

Cheap Shots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111123)

is she going to remove her inflamatory remarks in this post?

http://atty4kids.org/garciajayleecheapshotatty/

Paranoid Schizophrenia (5, Funny)

frazamatazzle (783144) | about 2 years ago | (#40111133)

Wow. That is what is like when you cross paths with someone that is truly unhinged. If I were Jay, I'd be checking to see if there are any bunnies in boiling pots on my stove.

Re:Paranoid Schizophrenia (3, Funny)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 years ago | (#40111195)

Paranoid Schizophrenia

Shouldn't that be Polaroid Schizophrenia?

Well, that's one way to get credit.... (1)

FingerSoup (928761) | about 2 years ago | (#40111145)

Point out a completely absurd situation, then link a single photo of a burger you took a picture of, that you found on a review site. You now have credit on the website. you might want to update your OP

She already posted about it.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111161)

on one of her many sites [chicksandpolitics.com] She sound like a b****.

Candice Shwagger has more problems now (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111187)

Candice Shwagger now that her antics have made the front page of /.

Its well knows that the weenies on /. have issues with cyberbullies, and a very long memory.

Its a good thing that nobody here would print that page to PDF and keep it archived and continue to remind the world of her shennigannis for a very long time.

I think Houston's best marketing attorny is going to be having problems since future clients will call her site into question because she's pladgerizing other peoples work. The Texas Bar association should really know about this, perhaps they will take action and actually end her career.

Registering photos for copyright (1)

ChrisBachmann (1675584) | about 2 years ago | (#40111193)

While photos are fairly easy to duplicate, registering them with the copyright office shortly after taking them is a pretty powerful argument when people use them outside of the attributions you license them with. If a site is infringing on their work, tell them to ask their lawyer about going to court over a registered copyright and they'll settle real quick. It's the difference between $500 and $50,000 if it ever goes to court. This does several things. 1) it demonstrates that you took the photo. 2) That you are asserting copyright (and quickly at that) 3) opens up the infringers to further damage apart from time and materials. There's a recent book on photography and copyright that's a good reference.

The real problem (4, Insightful)

Smivs (1197859) | about 2 years ago | (#40111213)

..is a crazy system that allows a site to be taken down with no prior warning, negotiation or appeal beforehand, surely.

Re:The real problem (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#40111515)

Soo.... GoDaddy is the real problem?
/that and crazy lady running for office

OMFG - Gorgeous material! (1)

gatesstillborg (2633899) | about 2 years ago | (#40111231)

"Now she’s trying my patience. She’s going back and forth offering the pay me and threatening to sue me and beating the “save the babies” drum very hardand upside me head."

This is the type of gold one used to find on cruel.com from time to time.

/. mis-spelled the name. Doesn't look like she's missing too many meals

http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/candice-schwager?slide=37962031 [examiner.com]

Re:OMFG - Gorgeous material! (0)

NerdmastaX (1749114) | about 2 years ago | (#40111331)

lol call candice and ask her why shes fat lol. Call her at 281.508.7722 or email candice@schwagerconsulting.com (also she looks like the mean teacher from harry potter 5) [ps: grabbed above from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kWy3EjJ_v4IJ:houstonsbestattorneymarketing.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [googleusercontent.com] ] it says to call her....

wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111263)

You have 48 hours to remove your nauseating bullshit or you will be sued for libel, defamation, slander, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress.

libel and slander from an internet post. wonder how that shit works.

Enough of this attitude (-1, Flamebait)

TheRealGrogan (1660825) | about 2 years ago | (#40111275)

For fuck's sake, get over yourselves. So you took a picture, and someone liked it and used it. Do you honestly think that you're something special when you click the button on your camera? How about the people who designed and built the structures you took the picture of? What about the restaurant that created the meal you snapped a picture of? (author of post). What if these people demanded royalties or some other form of attribution that they pull out of their asses? They CAN'T, luckily for you. (Though they do try in some countries)

I have taken pictures and one of them comes to mind. I didn't think a lot of it at the time, it was a picture of the sun setting over an island with a lighthouse, in the early spring when the ice was breaking up. Pink sky, reflecting on the ice. Yes, I stood in exactly the right place and focused the camera to get the best shot I could, to capture that effect. It was quite a nice picture and I was happy that a bunch of people liked it and used it. They don't need my fucking permission... I put it on the Internet and they took it.

Google bomb the mewling quim (4, Informative)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about 2 years ago | (#40111277)

Candice Schwager's blog post is still up at http://chicksandpolitics.com/ [chicksandpolitics.com] and it is hilarious.

Iâ(TM)m still shell shocked, because itâ(TM)s pretty clear that Jay Lee was hand picked for crafty weasliness with advanced studies in computer hacking.

Oh, god, she has YouTube channel, and has a ladyboner for Newt Gingrich: http://www.youtube.com/user/candilaw99 [youtube.com]

It is my professional opinion as a programmer that this woman is mentally ill and should be disbarred.

If it's so important that her sites stay up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111293)

Then maybe she should have been more careful about where she got her photos from. Although it seems to me like she is someone who is VERY accustomed to having her own way all the time.

Ignore the crazy lady (2)

mpoulton (689851) | about 2 years ago | (#40111311)

Why in the world would he capitulate to her insane demands? She violated his copyright, and has not successfully intimidated him into leaving her alone AND taking down his blog post about the incident? Nail her to the courtroom wall.

Re:Ignore the crazy lady (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#40111357)

Because he's not a douche. She does do nonprofit work for disabled children and he doesn't want to prevent that.

Also, he's protecting himself in case she does decide to sue. However, if I were in his place I'd seriously be considering a defamation/libel countersuit at this point.

Re:Ignore the crazy lady (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111423)

Not a good idea. Shwagger runs a marketing firm for attorneys. So the issue is not about justice, rights or the rule of law. Its about how much hell she can drag Lee through with the assistance of her friends.

Posted anonymously, because I don't go around poking tigers. Particularly not crazy ones.

Not too sure about her marketing strategy... (1)

gatesstillborg (2633899) | about 2 years ago | (#40111321)

I would have thought pictures of little "MR" girls in safety helmets would be more effective than ones of sky-scrapers.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111365)

"After reading the story, I checked for use of my own pictures and found one of them being used on a review site without even a credit."

From the link...

"THE FOOD PICTURES ON THIS PAGE COME FROM JAMES KITSON AND CAN BE VIEWED HERE. THANKS FOR THE USE OF THEM."

Careful (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#40111379)

Watch out there, if Candace finds out this is here she may decide to sue the whole lot of us for “libel, defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and seek punitive damages as well as actual, court costs, attorney fees, and interest”. Translated from lawyer-speak into English -- ;-(

To avoid copyright issues of my own.... Read more: http://www.baldheretic.com/2012/05/23/protecting-my-copyright#ixzz1vuKTe5iY [baldheretic.com]

chicks and politics (1)

retro83 (1224258) | about 2 years ago | (#40111395)

She sounds bat shit crazy.

http://chicksandpolitics.com/ [chicksandpolitics.com]

There are pages of this rambling nonsense:
I’m still shell shocked, because it’s pretty clear that Jay Lee was hand picked for crafty weasliness with advanced studies in computer hacking. He also happens to be an amateur photographer at .(drumroll, guess!)Houston Chronicle. A guy like Jay Lee would know how to inflict the most harm with a single shot. So, he did. Read his column and ask yourself: was this guy really clueless as to how host sites carry others and how to I.D. The host, disabling all. Motive? Muddy the Water of an overblown 4 year old set up. Though 4 Judges and the AG found that Garcia improperly withheld exculpatory evidence to terminate Guthrie without cause, Camp Garcia is desperate to poke holes and twist clear facts: Guthie beat him badly 3x. My blogs are the only high. ranked discussions of the Attorney General, 14th Court of Appeals, and Judge Caroline Baker’s rulings. Dillon butchered them, but lacks credibility due to Pittman agenda.

Her logo looks identical to another site too! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111411)

Her Blogspot site ...

http://attorney4specialneeds.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Has the same logo as ...

http://activesportfitness.co.uk/ [activesportfitness.co.uk]

Someone seems to have copied it from the other.

Thanks to Google Goggles for that quick research!

How quickly things get out of hand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111479)

I think it's reasonable for the photographer to request the picture be removed by the site operator before filing a DMCA notice. I can understand, however, why he wouldn't considering his photo is being used all over the place and he can't contact everybody individually. If he had done so though, I bet she would have just replaced the image (I hope).

If you receive a bogus DMCA takedown notice you have the right to name and shame the culprit. If you, however, receive a legitimate takedown notice then you are violating someone else's copyright and maybe you should have checked out the provenance on the image on your front page before deciding to just go ahead and use it. This woman's behavior is childish and shameful. She constructed this machiavellian conspiracy theory just so she doesn't have to feel stupid for using someone else's photo without credit or permission and then bullied the photographer into submission by hurling unsubstantiated slurs against his character.

If anyone in this mess is guilty of libel, it's Schwagger.

The DMCA takedown notice procedure is almost certainly part of the problem. As copyright enforcement tools go, it's a hammer and not a scalpel. Lee could have approached her differently for sure, but her reaction is so over the top and ridiculously childish that it staggers the imagination.

I'm an attorney and help sick children, thus... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111517)

Give me free pictures or I'll sue you. Is that the rationale?

Look, lady, take your own damn picture of Houston or find one under free license. Is that so difficult for an attorney to figure out?

On the other hand, using the DMCA from the start is a bit harsh because of the side-effects (e.g., whole sites being disabled, depending on how the ISP handles it). It would have been simpler to send a regular note to whoever the website contact is, ask them nicely not to use the (copyrighted) image without permission, and if they didn't respond in a week or two, then say "Fine. I'll use the DMCA process and see what your ISP thinks of the issue."

So, two nutjobs duking it out on the 'net (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111527)

Do we care? Both of them are crazy. Take your nutjob rants and DMCA takedowns and stuff 'em where the sun don't shine.

Bowing to threats (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 2 years ago | (#40111555)

I bet if the photographer walked into any lawyer's office and stated the case the lawyer would be happy to counter sue. Bowing to threats just lets the bullies get away with intimidation. There are laws against threats and baseless lawsuits. She would have to pay legal fees if something like this ever went to court. Hiding behind non-profit status does not make bullying OK.

Another avenue is that since she is a lawyer you could forward the communications to the State Bar association as baseless threats of lawsuits is an ethical issue. The Bar may not do anything but they may. If one does not try then it defiantly will never work. As Gretzky said "Every shot not taken will miss."

She will find you and haunt you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40111591)

I can't wait until she finds out it is on /. and comes over here with her rant and threats. That should make for some really good reading!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?