Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It would be interesting to obtain his pictures of celebrities and sell them in a gallery ourselves as there is no copyright available for derivatives if they don't differ sufficiently from the original!

Now, who wants to buy MY picture of Clint Eastwood?

Unfortunately that would breach copyright in the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not. The more he prevaricates the worse it gets - it is entirely of his own doing. If he had engaged with Sheila properly the costs would have been modest, the price goes up the more hassle he causes. It is now wilful and flagrant abuse; he can hardly claim he didn't know now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deleted

Edited by mickfly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Edited by mickfly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not sure if I need to but deleted anyway.

Edited by TokyoM1ke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 Probably better not to discuss detail in public either until you have it resolved.

 

 

 

I think this is the best bit of advice in the whole thread.

 

dd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably you have all the screenshots you need so taking it down now isn't going to help him much. Unless he's obeying your demand, haha.

I found one of yours on one of the art sites.

He can't take them off Google- it's interesting to image search some of his paintings to see who else he's ripped off.

Do keep us posted.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheila, you've posted this in the wrong section. This is:

 

Let's talk about pics
Purely to talk about and share images, portfolio critique, inspire and general positivity.
 
It's now being moved to Ask the Forum.
 
Alamy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the UK small claims court, the one time I used them (for a money claim, not copyright) the defendant was not within the EU and he was allowed to take part in the court case via telephone. Worth checking if you could do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you give some more detail on that? If a defendant is outside the EU my understanding is that he's beyond the reach of the UK courts.

Sheila needs only an English address for service of documents to issue a claim as the infringement is within the jurisdiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Edited by Sheila Smart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with the fight.  I've got three infringement cases I'm pursuing at the moment and they all seem to take time and energy far in excess of any potential rewards.  But each one is essential to establish yet another bench mark in the fight against the continual theft of our intellectual property.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.  

Futile too as of course it's all still there on the newspaper's website.

Still got a bottle of Tippex on my desk- I used it professionally as a court reporter until three years ago when we were replaced by digital recording- it must have been one of the last bastions of chemical correction. My handwriting has atrophied through disuse..

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next thing you'll get an ear by post.

;-)

 

wim

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next thing you'll get an ear by post.

;-)

 

wim

:lol: Unfortunately, he is no Van Gogh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is still the matter of compensation that is due for the use he did make! Takedown or destroying the copied work only prevents the continuation of the original infringment; it does not or excuse or delete it. The original infringment is still a matter of fact, indeed destroying the art worlks is tantamount to admititing it. I had the same when a magazine took down some image and effectively admitted the infringement; I wrote again with my compernsation claim got the money soon after.

 

Where there any others that he may have sold?

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is still the matter of compensation that is due for the use he did make! Takedown or destroying the copied work only prevents the continuation of the original infringment; it does not or excuse or delete it. The original infringment is still a matter of fact, indeed destroying the art worlks is tantamount to admititing it. I had the same when a magazine took down some image and effectively admitted the infringement; I wrote again with my compernsation claim got the money soon after.

 

Where there any others that he may have sold?

All the more reason not t let go, and it could, after it's all over, quite possibly make a great, saleable news story Sheila.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.