Author Topic: Huge copyright infringement... what would You do? (Read 16893 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #25 on:** October 28, 2016, 15:34 »

Point being, if you're going to license icons, it's likely they'll be used as icons.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #26 on:** October 28, 2016, 16:07 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 28, 2016, 03:55

...You're absolutely right, but you're also splitting hairs slightly. I mean, it's a graphical symbol meant to represent an event, and a brand, across all of their marketing channels. If that doesn't constitute a logo then it's pretty * close... it's not like such a case would get laughed out of court.

Are you seriously suggesting that the guy should forget about the rules of Shutterstock being broken, and his intellectual property rights being breached, just because there's a slight chance that the logo might not be a logo, when in every conceivable way... it does seem to be a logo?...

Splitting hairs is what lawyers do. At the hourly rates they charge, that can be very costly for their clients. In the US with contingency fees being legal (not the case everywhere) sometimes if you have the possibility of a huge payout, a lawyer will take a case on a contingency basis.

If you have large companies, governments or rich clients on one side, you have to consider the practicalities of the chance of winning and the costs of doing so, weighing that against the largest possible payout you think you could get. If you win and it costs you more in legal fees than your judgment, what's the point?

It's in the contributor's best financial interests to try and resolve this without a lawsuit, IMO. In addition to the issues of making the details of your case , you've got five countries involved, apparently, and possibly another country where the agency is. Which court do you take this to?

The OP mentioned that the countries are rich - not sure what that has to do with anything regarding the infringement issue, but it probably means they can outspend a stock illustrator in a legal fight. Legal battles are typically long, costly and ugly.

Morphart · « **Reply #27 on:** October 28, 2016, 16:13 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 28, 2016, 09:55

Quote from: Morphart on October 28, 2016, 09:06
I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).

So, how is a commercial enterprise, organization or individual supposed to use an image like this, if not to promote public recognition of their company, event or product?

It's essentially an icon, something that iconifies something.

Normally these images were made for Tattoo design and decals. This can be used for tatoo or part of a background design for print or web. Anything but a logo.

Morphart · « **Reply #28 on:** October 28, 2016, 16:23 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on October 28, 2016, 12:09

While I side with morphart with this abuse, I did a simple search by design on google images and found the identical eagle on pages and pages of sites, some for sale, some I don't know what the license allows.

http://tinyurl.com/hd2plqj

How do you know where they got it? Do they credit you as the artist and the source?

You are not talking about the right illustration, I did not disclose the illustration as my point of leverage right now is I haven't gone public and to the media to avoid them being embarrassed... and so that they can offer to buy the copyrights in good faith. Probably they hired a graphic designer who mislead them with this also, we can leave the governments a doubt.

Morphart · « **Reply #29 on:** October 28, 2016, 16:29 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 28, 2016, 16:07

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 28, 2016, 03:55
...You're absolutely right, but you're also splitting hairs slightly. I mean, it's a graphical symbol meant to represent an event, and a brand, across all of their marketing channels. If that doesn't constitute a logo then it's pretty * close... it's not like such a case would get laughed out of court.

Are you seriously suggesting that the guy should forget about the rules of Shutterstock being broken, and his intellectual property rights being breached, just because there's a slight chance that the logo might not be a logo, when in every conceivable way... it does seem to be a logo?...

Splitting hairs is what lawyers do. At the hourly rates they charge, that can be very costly for their clients. In the US with contingency fees being legal (not the case everywhere) sometimes if you have the possibility of a huge payout, a lawyer will take a case on a contingency basis.

If you have large companies, governments or rich clients on one side, you have to consider the practicalities of the chance of winning and the costs of doing so, weighing that against the largest possible payout you think you could get. If you win and it costs you more in legal fees than your judgment, what's the point?

It's in the contributor's best financial interests to try and resolve this without a lawsuit, IMO. In addition to the issues of making the details of your case , you've got five countries involved, apparently, and possibly another country where the agency is. Which court do you take this to?

The OP mentioned that the countries are rich - not sure what that has to do with anything regarding the infringement issue, but it probably means they can outspend a stock illustrator in a legal fight. Legal battles are typically long, costly and ugly.

I can only lawsuit them in their country... or go public to the medias which I think they wouldn't like for such a vast coverage. In any case it's in progress right now, will post back in a month or so when all this is over.

Morphart · « **Reply #30 on:** October 28, 2016, 16:31 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 28, 2016, 15:34

Point being, if you're going to license icons, it's likely they'll be used as icons.

Of course. Use them as an icon, not as a logo with your company name below it, with a few color changes to make as you did the illustration.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #31 on:** October 29, 2016, 00:55 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 28, 2016, 16:07

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 28, 2016, 03:55
...You're absolutely right, but you're also splitting hairs slightly. I mean, it's a graphical symbol meant to represent an event, and a brand, across all of their marketing channels. If that doesn't constitute a logo then it's pretty * close... it's not like such a case would get laughed out of court.

Are you seriously suggesting that the guy should forget about the rules of Shutterstock being broken, and his intellectual property rights being breached, just because there's a slight chance that the logo might not be a logo, when in every conceivable way... it does seem to be a logo?...

Splitting hairs is what lawyers do. At the hourly rates they charge, that can be very costly for their clients. In the US with contingency fees being legal (not the case everywhere) sometimes if you have the possibility of a huge payout, a lawyer will take a case on a contingency basis.

If you have large companies, governments or rich clients on one side, you have to consider the practicalities of the chance of winning and the costs of doing so, weighing that against the largest possible payout you think you could get. If you win and it costs you more in legal fees than your judgment, what's the point?

It's in the contributor's best financial interests to try and resolve this without a lawsuit, IMO. In addition to the issues of making the details of your case , you've got five countries involved, apparently, and possibly another country where the agency is. Which court do you take this to?

The OP mentioned that the countries are rich - not sure what that has to do with anything regarding the infringement issue, but it probably means they can outspend a stock illustrator in a legal fight. Legal battles are typically long, costly and ugly.

So your advice to everyone, would be that no matter what has happened... whether it be dead family members, copyright infringement, a house that has burnt to the ground because of faulty electricals, lost baggage, broken limbs due to poor safety, defamation, unfair dismissal, somebody blatantly copying our work, squatters in your property, items that are mis-sold, unpaid debts, people breaching NDAs, burgers with rats heads in them etc etc..... we should just forget about it?

noodle · « **Reply #32 on:** October 29, 2016, 07:21 »

This sounds like an interesting case, i am curious how it will be resolved

Hopefully it turns out well for you

kingjon · « **Reply #33 on:** October 29, 2016, 11:10 »

Is small claims court an option? In Canada, claims of up to 25000 can be made in small claims court. This would vary by country but could save you some lawyer fees.

John

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #34 on:** October 29, 2016, 13:15 »

As for how much... I'd do your best to figure out how much it would cost for them to go with a different logo, taking into account re-editing and reprinting posters, t-shirts, adverts, billboards etc... and ask for half of that. Or maybe three quarters, if you think your calculations are pretty spot on.

Obviously you could ask for more, but if they have a choice between X and X+100%, then it makes your option more appealing. Yes, they've still breached your rights and should have to pay up even if they go with another logo design... but any compensation awarded might not be as high if the perps immediately remove all usage of your logo, as soon as they're made aware of the issue.

ravens · « **Reply #35 on:** October 31, 2016, 03:30 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 28, 2016, 09:55

Quote from: Morphart on October 28, 2016, 09:06
I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).

So, how is a commercial enterprise, organization or individual supposed to use an image like this, if not to promote public recognition of their company, event or product?

It's essentially an icon, something that iconifies something.

SS should be selling this only as editorial. This is a well known logo esp in Europe.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #36 on:** October 31, 2016, 04:35 »

Quote from: ravens on October 31, 2016, 03:30

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 28, 2016, 09:55
Quote from: Morphart on October 28, 2016, 09:06
I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).

So, how is a commercial enterprise, organization or individual supposed to use an image like this, if not to promote public recognition of their company, event or product?

It's essentially an icon, something that iconifies something.
SS should be selling this only as editorial. This is a well known logo esp in Europe.

Who's logo is it?

ravens · « **Reply #37 on:** October 31, 2016, 05:26 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2016, 04:35

Quote from: ravens on October 31, 2016, 03:30
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 28, 2016, 09:55
Quote from: Morphart on October 28, 2016, 09:06
I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).

So, how is a commercial enterprise, organization or individual supposed to use an image like this, if not to promote public recognition of their company, event or product?

It's essentially an icon, something that iconifies something.
SS should be selling this only as editorial. This is a well known logo esp in Europe.

Who's logo is it?

This logo is Scania Griffin. It refers both to the 100 year old vehicle manufacturer and the province of Scania in Sweden. There are different versions of it through time. This one is missing the crown but the rest of it is same and EXTREMELY identifiable as in the later versions of the logo. The Scania coat of Arms with the griffin dates back to the 1400s!

If someone here claims they designed the Scania Griffin, well, good luck!

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #38 on:** October 31, 2016, 05:55 »

I just googled it and they really aren't the same IMHO

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #39 on:** October 31, 2016, 06:04 »

Yeah, I just gave it a go and they're pretty far off. Yes, they're both black and white illustrations of the same beast, and it could be said that the style of illustration is pretty similar, but there are a lot of considerable differences.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #40 on:** October 31, 2016, 06:12 »

OP you may want to check this:
yours http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html
theirs http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-277309679.html

ETA yeah maybe this too: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-478143574.html

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #41 on:** October 31, 2016, 06:22 »

But this image:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html

predates your one above no? I am just notice some similarities like the number of swooshes at the bottom, position of the sideways "v" by the mouth. Number of lines above the eye. Way the eye is cut off at the bottom. Way eye intersects line. Way the dark shape swooshes under the eye and so on.
ETA: I mean this one
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html

Weird huh?

Morphart · « **Reply #42 on:** October 31, 2016, 09:20 »

Quote from: kingjon on October 29, 2016, 11:10

Is small claims court an option? In Canada, claims of up to 25000 can be made in small claims court. This would vary by country but could save you some lawyer fees.

John

No, I'm from Canada but the copyright infringement is in another country, we need to use to claims in that country we cannot use Canada's legislation for this

Morphart · « **Reply #43 on:** October 31, 2016, 09:23 »

Quote from: ravens on October 31, 2016, 05:26

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2016, 04:35
Quote from: ravens on October 31, 2016, 03:30
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 28, 2016, 09:55
Quote from: Morphart on October 28, 2016, 09:06
I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).

So, how is a commercial enterprise, organization or individual supposed to use an image like this, if not to promote public recognition of their company, event or product?

It's essentially an icon, something that iconifies something.
SS should be selling this only as editorial. This is a well known logo esp in Europe.

Who's logo is it?
This logo is Scania Griffin. It refers both to the 100 year old vehicle manufacturer and the province of Scania in Sweden. There are different versions of it through time. This one is missing the crown but the rest of it is same and EXTREMELY identifiable as in the later versions of the logo. The Scania coat of Arms with the griffin dates back to the 1400s!

If someone here claims they designed the Scania Griffin, well, good luck!

Stop quoting this image and searching about it, it's not even the image I am claiming on lol. It's just Sean who posted this one try to make a point lol.

Morphart · « **Reply #44 on:** October 31, 2016, 09:27 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2016, 06:22

But this image:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html

predates your one above no? I am just notice some similarities like the number of swooshes at the bottom, position of the sideways "v" by the mouth. Number of lines above the eye. Way the eye is cut off at the bottom. Way eye intersects line. Way the dark shape swooshes under the eye and so on.

Weird huh?

I'm not sure I understand your point? First the image people quotes in this thread is not related at all to the issue I am talking about. Second I don't see any similarities except that they are both eagle heads?

Please read the start of the thread if you didn't. :p

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #45 on:** October 31, 2016, 09:52 »

Quote from: Morphart on October 31, 2016, 09:27

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2016, 06:22
But this image:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html

predates your one above no? I am just notice some similarities like the number of swooshes at the bottom, position of the sideways "v" by the mouth. Number of lines above the eye. Way the eye is cut off at the bottom. Way eye intersects line. Way the dark shape swooshes under the eye and so on.

Weird huh?

I'm not sure I understand your point? First the image people quotes in this thread is not related at all to the issue I am talking about. Second I don't see any similarities except that they are both eagle heads?

Please read the start of the thread if you didn't. :p

You should compare the two side by side, IMHO every element of the eagles head has a corresponding almost identical element in your version, but whatever.

I am talking about these two, not the one Sean linked to:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html

CJH Photography · « **Reply #46 on:** October 31, 2016, 10:20 »

What confuses me is why your attorney is not able to advise you as to the value of the case. Does he specialize in IP cases? He should be familiar with typical settlement and judgment values in his field.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #47 on:** October 31, 2016, 11:18 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2016, 09:52

Quote from: Morphart on October 31, 2016, 09:27
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2016, 06:22
But this image:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html

predates your one above no? I am just notice some similarities like the number of swooshes at the bottom, position of the sideways "v" by the mouth. Number of lines above the eye. Way the eye is cut off at the bottom. Way eye intersects line. Way the dark shape swooshes under the eye and so on.

Weird huh?

I'm not sure I understand your point? First the image people quotes in this thread is not related at all to the issue I am talking about. Second I don't see any similarities except that they are both eagle heads?

Please read the start of the thread if you didn't. :p

You should compare the two side by side, IMHO every element of the eagles head has a corresponding almost identical element in your version, but whatever.

I am talking about these two, not the one Sean linked to:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html

Yeah, but you're still comparing them to the one he posted... for all we know, the logo in question could be a bat having intimate relations with a horse. As a result, I see no similarities in the eagles you've posted, and the bat horse action logo that this thread relates to.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #48 on:** October 31, 2016, 11:59 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 31, 2016, 11:18

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2016, 09:52
Quote from: Morphart on October 31, 2016, 09:27
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2016, 06:22
But this image:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html

predates your one above no? I am just notice some similarities like the number of swooshes at the bottom, position of the sideways "v" by the mouth. Number of lines above the eye. Way the eye is cut off at the bottom. Way eye intersects line. Way the dark shape swooshes under the eye and so on.

Weird huh?

I'm not sure I understand your point? First the image people quotes in this thread is not related at all to the issue I am talking about. Second I don't see any similarities except that they are both eagle heads?

Please read the start of the thread if you didn't. :p

You should compare the two side by side, IMHO every element of the eagles head has a corresponding almost identical element in your version, but whatever.

I am talking about these two, not the one Sean linked to:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12220846/stock-photo-illustration-of-a-head-eagle.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218972797.html

Yeah, but you're still comparing them to the one he posted... for all we know, the logo in question could be a bat having intimate relations with a horse. As a result, I see no similarities in the eagles you've posted, and the bat horse action logo that this thread relates to.

No I'm not, I'm comparing the two links to each other not to the one Sean posted. One is by the OP, the other is by another contributor. If your point is that this isn't what the OP intended to discuss, then yes you are correct. I just noticed the similarity when I was taking a look at his portfolio for this thread.

Morphart · « **Reply #49 on:** October 31, 2016, 12:17 »

Quote from: CJH Photography on October 31, 2016, 10:20

What confuses me is why your attorney is not able to advise you as to the value of the case. Does he specialize in IP cases? He should be familiar with typical settlement and judgment values in his field.

Yes he has 15 years experience in IP cases, but first off he didn't know the exact amount, for now we'll ask the other party to stop using the image or make an offer to buy the license.

I was trying to get some sort of insight here as it has been useful in the past, but I guess without disclosing all the information and the importance and coverage of their campaign would be hard to do. Official attorney letter is leaving today, I'll keep posted about the result :p

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Huge copyright infringement... what would You do? (Read 16893 times)

Sean Locke Photography

Jo Ann Snover

Morphart

Morphart

Morphart

Morphart

SpaceStockFootage

noodle

kingjon

SpaceStockFootage

ravens

Justanotherphotographer

ravens

Justanotherphotographer

SpaceStockFootage

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Morphart

Morphart

Morphart

Justanotherphotographer

CJH Photography

SpaceStockFootage

Justanotherphotographer

Morphart

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors