Here is the situation:

Some numbnut ripped one of my images and made composites out of it by adding random, isolated objects to my background image.

He then used to upload them to the agencies and actually sold some of them. He has been banned for a while now but I still come across a bunch of sites that have my/his images online.

How can I make a proper DMCA claim as the image was illegally created in the first place but whoever bought that picture or ripped it doesn't know that?


 

... the agency ... should probably have notified any buyers.

Please replace "should" with "wouldn't"

Quote from: holgs on June 25, 2011, 16:30

... the agency ... should probably have notified any buyers.

Please replace "should" with "wouldn't"

In theory you can still file a notification, without the agency getting involved, although they should have backed up their ban on the artist by issuing a warning. Unless of course they don't have a clue who to notify and don't have that information?

Anyway, file the DMCA claim and explain that a portion of the image was stolen property, and yours, then sold without rights or permission. Let the buyer go back to the agency if they want. It's not your problem and not your fault.

Or do nothing, but then stop writing about it here, because it's empty and hypothetical. Not being critical, just pointing out, that I think you should continue and file the claim. Do you know where the images came from? Maybe the agencies don't either, if they were for sale from multiple sources. See the complications of who actually sold them to the buyer? You need to have some tracability. If you do, then go for it!

I emailed the details I hope people don't think I was blasting you with the comment. I know it looks a little like "put up or shut up" but it wasn't meant that way.

Quote from: RacePhoto on June 28, 2011, 03:15

Quote from: click_click on June 25, 2011, 17:02

Quote from: holgs on June 25, 2011, 16:30

... the agency ... should probably have notified any buyers.

Please replace "should" with "wouldn't"

In theory you can still file a notification, without the agency getting involved, although they should have backed up their ban on the artist by issuing a warning. Unless of course they don't have a clue who to notify and don't have that information?

Anyway, file the DMCA claim and explain that a portion of the image was stolen property, and yours, then sold without rights or permission. Let the buyer go back to the agency if they want. It's not your problem and not your fault.

Or do nothing, but then stop writing about it here, because it's empty and hypothetical. Not being critical, just pointing out, that I think you should continue and file the claim. Do you know where the images came from? Maybe the agencies don't either, if they were for sale from multiple sources. See the complications of who actually sold them to the buyer? You need to have some traceability. If you do, then go for it!

I did what you said and it was no problem, at least with Facebook. The image was removed within a few hours.

Quote from: RacePhoto on June 28, 2011, 11:12

I emailed the details I hope people don't think I was blasting you with the comment. I know it looks a little like "put up or shut up" but it wasn't meant that way.

I never took it that way. No harm done. 

Yea, but you got to read the log PM explanation.

I mentioned it to an attorney friend and said someone needs to set up a claim factory and work for 50%. The small ones may cost money, but now and then there will be a big return. Didn't sound like it was an exciting idea.

Only the other parts were a PM, the rest was in the forum because the way the message appeared to be "put up or shut up" and it wasn't.

I talked to some more legal types and so far, not one has thought it was a good idea, even at 50% to be writing letters and filing claims, when the return is so small or negative.

I've also been persuaded by people here that DMCA sucks and is virtually fruitless. All they do is take it down and say "oops sorry" nothing happens, we get nothing, and they can go steal someone else's images. The analogy of getting caught shop lifting and then saying, OK I'll put it back on the shelf, is closer than getting caught and saying, OK I'll buy it. Because with DMCA, they don't buy it, they don't return it, they just make it disappear. Oh boy, do I feel like that was a no-win deal. Heck, stolen photos getting photo credit is more valuable. It sucks! DMCA has no teeth!

So here we are again. The people who steal the images have little to lose and when caught don't feel threatened and don't have to pay for stealing your work. So much for the modern information age. Everything will soon be free and have no value.

Quote from: RacePhoto on June 30, 2011, 23:07

... The small ones may cost money, but now and then there will be a big return. Didn't sound like it was an exciting idea.

Yeah, the "cost money" part is where you lost him/her - lol.

Well, once a letter is drawn with a few blanks in it, it shouldn't be so costly anymore. We should get "trained" by an attorney to screen infringement cases like the reviewers at the stock agencies.

If we deem a case pursue-worthy it may be worth "more" for the attorney to look into it.

Maybe the "reviewers" can get 5% for their services. Oh boy, one can set up a whole new industry doing this.

But shhhhh, don't tell anyone.

Uh, wasn't this a PM?