Jump to content

Sheila Smart

Verified
  • Content Count

    283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts 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.  

    In this particular case the artist asked permission. This artist is one of the good guys. It is a good news story. So why all the angst?
     
    The photographer can say yes, no, or yes with a fee and conditions. Can't get any better than that.

     

    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.  

  3. 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!

  4.  

    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 near impossible.  He was most indignant when I suggested to him in an email that he was using filters or projecting my work onto some form of media and it became a paint by numbers project!

     

    So to Ernest - beware.  You could have a battle on your hands if the person is as unscrupulous as mine.

     

    Sheila

    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.   

  5. 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

  6. 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 near impossible.  He was most indignant when I suggested to him in an email that he was using filters or projecting my work onto some form of media and it became a paint by numbers project!

     

    So to Ernest - beware.  You could have a battle on your hands if the person is as unscrupulous as mine.

     

    Sheila

  7. 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 suggested to him that other photographers may not offer him a license and he could have more very expensive law suits on his hands.  

     

    Edit: Since writing this post, I have found that he has taken down his main website too.  Doesn't look like he wants to take out a license!  I then went to see if his Facebook page exists and it does.  What is extraordinary is that he has uploaded an article appearing in the local press about his exhibition but he has deliberately whited out (probably with Tippex - anyone remember Tippex?!) the reference to aboriginal faces before uploading it.  Is that pathetic or what!  I have taken note of the journo's name and if he does not agree to a retro license, she will be hearing from me.  

  8.  

     

    Sheila, as well as compensation for the initial infringment you should point out that the paintings will have to be destroyed, including the sold ones. The compensation is just that it is not a licence to use the images.

     

    Recall of the infringing work is something the rules allow for, especially as the location of all copies of your work are known, it is only equivalent to a take down notice after all. Then you can offer him a very expensive licence to not have to do so (probably equivalent to the price the paintings were sold for, plus a bit ;) Of course he will have to 'fess up to all breaches (other offences to be taken into account) or he faces the same issues again when any undeclared misuse is discovered.

     

    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 resolved.  Not a lawyer but have been through a few things before.

     

    Already done that!  Was advised to do that by another UK lawyer awhile back.  

  9. Sheila, as well as compensation for the initial infringment you should point out that the paintings will have to be destroyed, including the sold ones. The compensation is just that it is not a licence to use the images.

     

    Recall of the infringing work is something the rules allow for, especially as the location of all copies of your work are known, it is only equivalent to a take down notice after all. Then you can offer him a very expensive licence to not have to do so (probably equivalent to the price the paintings were sold for, plus a bit ;) Of course he will have to 'fess up to all breaches (other offences to be taken into account) or he faces the same issues again when any undeclared misuse is discovered.

     

    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!  

  10. 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 minutes of arrival.   Had an ECG, they took blood, gave me morphine, was on a drip and eventually they did a scan.  Nothing showed and they think it was just a gastric attack.  Being lefties, we don't have private health care and rely on Medicare (which we pay via taxes) and I paid nothing and left the hospital five hours later.  One of the nurses said her son, who is skiing in the US had a similar attack and ended up paying $7,000 for 23 hours in hospital. 

     

    I might let him stew for a bit and in the meantime, I will contact the UK lawyers.

     

    Sheila

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
×
×
  • 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.