Jump to content

Sheila Smart

Verified
  • Content Count

    283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sheila Smart

  1. I agree with Famousbelgian. If you were an amateur when you used the old 35mm lenses, you rarely, if ever, enlarged them anything above 5 x 7. These days, images are enlarged to such an extent that any failings such as lack of sharpness (or SoLD) would become immediately apparent. When I "went digital" in 2001, I tried using my old Canon lenses and ended up flogging them on eBay.
  2. When a charity asks me to donate my work, I ask them if anyone else is donating their time. I rarely get an answer! A good friend who worked for a large international charity a few years ago always flew business class on international flights (from Australia) and stayed in 5 star hotels. Nuff said! Sheila
  3. Fees like $10.00 are the reason why I have placed restrictions editorial>editorial website on ALL of my work. I suggest others do likewise! Sheila
  4. Not if its a large US manufacturer which shelled out $8,000 for one of my images illegally appearing on their FB page! The discussion was in sterling so I deduce it was in the UK. To the best of my knowledge there is no precedent for that level of damages here. More's the pity!
  5. Now my two cents...There should NEVER be an offer of a retro license to an infringer unless Alamy firstly seeks the permission from the photographer, who, after all, is the owner of the image, not Alamy (which Alamy seemingly forgets on occasion). The photographer should have the right to decline the retro license and take action against the infringer if they wish.
  6. Not if its a large US manufacturer which shelled out $8,000 for one of my images illegally appearing on their FB page!
  7. I have just realised, after doing some research via Google, how easy it is to transfer a photograph on to canvas. All one has to do is arrange the copying of a photograph on to clear plastic and place it in a projector, overhead or otherwise. Voila!
  8. In my particular case, Bill, the artist also asked (for two images out of the six he used) but then conveniently forgot about the condition of non-commercial use.
  9. Meet Cedric, aboriginal busker and street performer. A stranger when I took the pic a few years back and now model released!
  10. What I do not understand is why galleries knowingly exhibit "painters" work which are clearly derivatives of photographs and do not question the "painter" if he or she has the written permission from the photographer and morally they should also request an attribution for each piece. But they apparently do not. It would be an interesting exercise to research if they are also guilty of copyright infringement by hanging the derivatives. But that is for another post!
  11. Without naming the person Sheila, it is very annoying seeing how smug he is posing next to HIS paintings. I also noticed he copies some very distinctive pictures of celebrities, and the people who commission or take those images are big enough to destroy him. I did warn him in my email that he could find that some photographers would not offer him a reasonable retro license and instead pursue him for copyright infringement which he would find very expensive. I think that is why he took his website down entirely rather than just remove derivatives of my work.
  12. As soon as I see a particular image of mine being used illegally in the US more than say a dozen times, I then register it for future infringements. I cannot claim for past infringements but the future claims certainly make it worthwhile. I am indeed forever grateful to Photoattorney Carolyn Wright who suggested a few years back to register a particular image. It has been one of my better investments!! Sheila
  13. In my case, he did ask (on two images out of the six he used) but conveniently forgot my expressed written condition that it must not be for commercial use but he still flogged them off his site for up to 2 thousand quid each. A couple of days ago, I took one of his "paintings" into Photoshop and placed my photograph as a layer and lo and behold, it fitted perfectly - every hair on his beard and wrinkle on his face matched mine even down to the number of beads around the neck. For him to assert he paints freehand is nonsense as for him to get the proportions exact is highly unlikely and nea
  14. I just got the most bizarre email from the painter attaching photographs of two of the works which he has totally destroyed! He would rather destroy the paintings and delete his website than take out a retro license to continue to sell and exhibit them in perpetuity. Given the circumstances, it was really shocking to me personally to see artworks destroyed.
  15. Here is the most helpful advice from IP attorney, Carolyn Wright on registering copyright in the US. http://www.naturescapes.net/articles/business/registering-your-copyrights-using-the-eco-system/ Sheila
  16. Thanks for deleting any references to him personally. Mark, I can use either of my sisters' addresses for service of document (they live in Southampton and Bournemouth). I wrote to him advising him to accept my offer of a retro license so he can continue to sell and exhibit the derivatives (with attribution) and he would not need to destroy the works should I be successful in the Small Claims Court. He has since removed his other website where the "paintings" were still being shown so I assume that the is not interested otherwise he would not have removed the site entirely. I also suggest
  17. I have removed the link (which, by the way, he has shut down) in order not to identify him. Would others please also remove any reference to this painter that they have made in their post as I do not want this post to come back and bit me in the rear end! Thanks. Sheila
  18. You think like I do, Martin. With the threat of litigation over his head, I am going to offer him a retro license to continue to display and even sell his work (with an added percentage for every sale) and with attribution. I will make him an offer he, hopefully, cannot refuse! Do mark it "without prejudice save as to costs" if you don't want it to be put forward in court later as "this is what I was offered, so it's the most that the license can be worth". How English law works (should be same in Aus). Probably better not to discuss detail in public either until you have it resolv
  19. You think like I do, Martin. With the threat of litigation over his head, I am going to offer him a retro license to continue to display and even sell his work (with an added percentage for every sale) and with attribution. I will make him an offer he, hopefully, cannot refuse!
  20. Actually, I did write to Hyde Community asking for my email I sent them to be passed on to the journo but I got no response. I have just received a rambling email from him which he said he sent me in December but I have no record of receiving it. I got a call from one of the lawyers of the firm John recommended but I was a little indisposed and let it go to voicemail as, long story short, I ended up last night at the emergency room of our local hospital with extraordinary stomach pains. For all you folk who don't believe in "socialised" medicine, then think again! I was seen within five m
  21. Can someone please tell me how to get an image from my Desktop to this forum. I have tried various ways, copying and pasting, dragging from my desktop to the textbox but all I get is a large image and it does not actually embed. I am sure in the past there was an icon to do this but it has disappeared! Cheers Sheila
  22. Thanks Linda. Does Imagerights still use IPP which did not come up to my expectations...and I am being kind here! Sheila
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.