Tom Schwabel - copyright equivalent of Nigerian scam

[UnfairlyTargeted]

A "photographer" by the name of Tom Schwabel sent me an email that I had used one of his images on my website.  He claims I removed his watermark, a laughable claim that of course he could never prove.  He wanted me to take down the image and pay him a few hundred bucks.  But here's the thing: I don't think the image he was talking about was his!  I think it is actually an image from a guy by the name of Peter Lik.  So I told him to f**k off.  About a week later he sent a letter to my hosting provider, and they took my site down!  WTF?!?  Sounds like a huge scam to extort money out of people.  I wonder how many others this guy has scammed.  Anybody else been targeted by this scammer?

Guys like this need to be outed and put in jail!

[DavidVGoliath]

A "photographer" by the name of Tom Schwabel sent me an email that I had used one of his images on my website.

A very quick google search shows that a Tom Schwabel has a portfolio of images, with his copyright watermark quite visible, on the website 500px.com 

He claims I removed his watermark, a laughable claim that of course he could never prove.

It's relatively easy to prove, but that only forms a portion of any infringement claim. The potatoes, if you will, and not the meat.

He wanted me to take down the image and pay him a few hundred bucks.  But here's the thing: I don't think the image he was talking about was his!  I think it is actually an image from a guy by the name of Peter Lik.

So you're admitting to infringing on either Tom Schwabel's or Peter Lik's work? Wow.

So I told him to f**k off.  About a week later he sent a letter to my hosting provider, and they took my site down!  WTF?!

... which is a request that your hosting provider must comply with per 17 USC 512 if they want to avoid liability for copyright infringement.

Well here's some news for you; a quick search of records at the copyright office shows that both Tom Schwabel and Peter Lik have their ducks in a row with regards to registrations of their work, that appear to be valid and timely -  so, regardless of who's shot it is, if either wanted to take this further, they could... and I'd advise against a head-in-the-sand or "feck off" response.

[UnfairlyTargeted]

The image had no copyright on it.  I think this guy is either just seeding the internet with unwatermarked images so he can threaten people or claiming ownership in images he doesn't own and then trying to extort money out of people.  He carries on his page about people stealing images like some kind of baby.  Seriously, it is an image on the internet.  I'm not selling his image.  I can get a better image on istock for a few bucks.  Asking a few hundred bucks is shameful and should be a crime.  Who is to say his copyright registration is falsified too?  Who sends a "legal notice" by email?  Whole thing sounds like a scam.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I guess it's time for me to be a dick...the question is, if you can get a better image from istock for a couple of bucks, why didn't you?.. I think it would be in your best interest to get a little educated in regards to copyright..Hell there's a parking lot full of cars at the local walmart, maybe i'll just go get me one of them.. a "couple hundred bucks" seems fairly reasonable IF the photographer has his ducks in a row.

[DavidVGoliath]

The image had no copyright on it.

Under US law, images haven't need to have copyright notices on them since 1989.

I think this guy is either just seeding the internet with unwatermarked images so he can threaten people or claiming ownership in images he doesn't own and then trying to extort money out of people.

Yeah, because allowing your work to propagate online and collecting on infringements is such a wonderful business model... except, wait, what about the challenges of trying to get any kind of of compensation from places outside the US? You know, where the other 96% of the global population is?

He carries on his page about people stealing images like some kind of baby.

Spoken like someone who has never worked to create something in their life. There's time, effort, expense, experience and skill that goes into the creations of professional photographers and other creatives

Seriously, it is an image on the internet.  I'm not selling his image.  I can get a better image on istock for a few bucks.

So why didn't you? Why did you simply lift work from the web instead of either paying a license from iStock (or similar) or, you know, going out and creating something of your own?

Asking a few hundred bucks is shameful and should be a crime.

The photographer is offering you the chance to pay for something you have already used. As his work, he sets the rate. If you thought it was too high, you could have negotiated - but no, by your own admission, you told him to "fuck off" instead, showing that you lack either respect or contrition.

Who is to say his copyright registration is falsified too?

I guess you'll find out in short order because, like i said, both Tom Schwabel and Peter Lik have copyright registrations filed with the Library of Congress... so odds are you may well hear from counsel for at least one of them in the future

Who sends a "legal notice" by email?  Whole thing sounds like a scam.

Lots of people send out legal notices via email, and often follow up by sending the same notice via the postal service - except, you know, unless you're hiding behind a pseudonym or domain proxy service.

Want to know what's a scam? Lifting images off the internet with abandon and then crying about it when the copyright holder finds out.

Man up, take responsibility for your actions, make an offer to the photographer for your admitted prior use of their work, and learn something from the experience.

[UnfairlyTargeted]

So I tried google images on a few of his images, and some are all over the internet with no watermark.  Sounds like I'm not the one who needs to man up!!!  That's entrapment.  If he or any of his bottom feeding friends try to extort me again, I will report them to the police and their bar association.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

So I tried google images on a few of his images, and some are all over the internet with no watermark.  Sounds like I'm not the one who needs to man up!!!  That's entrapment.  If he or any of his bottom feeding friends try to extort me again, I will report them to the police and their bar association.

good luck with that..gonna try one more time here..

1. the watermark has nothing to do with anything, it is NOT required.
2. because the image appears on other sites, means NOTHING, you would have to prove that the image was "seeded"
3.IF the photog sued you, you "MIGHT" be able to get away with innocent infringement, and pay the minimum of $200.00, but then you might also have to pay his attorney fees, and yours...much more than a couple of hundred bucks he's asking for now..
4. This is a photographer, so the bar association again has nothing to do with this..

[UnfairlyTargeted]

Thought I was doing you all a favor by bringing a troll to light.  Whatever, he can sue.  But courts aren't collection agents so I wish him lots of luck.

[DavidVGoliath]

Thought I was doing you all a favor by bringing a troll to light.  Whatever, he can sue.  But courts aren't collection agents so I wish him lots of luck.

Seriously? It's abundantly clear from the tone of your postings that you are unapologetic about your actions and are bleating on about getting caught in the hopes of eliciting sympathy.

You make bold assertions that the photographer has no right to put his claim to you, go on to proudly state you told him to "fuck off", and imply that - despite being knowledgeable about copyrights in the broad sense (how else would you know you had the option of paying to license an image from a library?), you then toss your toys out of the pram by goading the photographer into suing you with "courts aren't collections agencies" prattle.

What the f'n hell makes you think you should get a free ride? Where on earth do you get such a sense of entitlement that, when you have grossly admitted to making use of something that is not yours, you should be let off for doing so - just because you believe your actions constitute a no-harm, no foul outcome?

You should note that the photographer's first contact with you was direct and likely cordial. He didn't lawyer up, and he didn't make a four, five or six figure settlement demand - yet you spat in his face in return for him being reasonable and hoped that, by telling the world about it, you would get affirmation and approval for your actions.

I'll close with this: be careful in goading the photographer into suing you, as seems to be the case with your parting shot. You may get exactly what you wish for, and it just might turn out to be the farthest thing from what you want by way of outcome.

[UnfairlyTargeted]

Apologize for WHAT?  There are billions of images all over the internet.  If people had to pay for every image on the net, the net wouldn't exist.

Many photographers like this one don't have any original work.  They've stolen everything from someone else.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  The image in question is a copy of Peter Lik's image.  I've seen Lik's image in a Vegas gallery.  So it is OK for him to steal from Peter Lik, but now I'm the bad guy?  There are thousands of image of that stupid tree.  Just do a google search and you'll get like 100,000 hits.  Are all of those other copycat photographers who can't make it on their own allowed to copy his image and then extort people with something they copied from someone else???  Where does it stop?  Seriously?!

Some lowlife scum decides to jump on the bandwagon of large corporations and start sending out threatening letters to people hoping to scare them into paying for an image that they were tricked into thinking was free.  An image that isn't even his, but a copy of someone else's image.  An image that he doesn't really own that he seeded all over the internet on wallpaper and free stock photo sites to reel in unsuspecting victims who pay before they realize they've been duped.  And you're defending him?  I thought this forum was to help shut down this practice of scamming people into paying for things they shouldn't need to pay for.  This is a disturbing trend if a whole cottage industry of con artists is following on the heels of Getty and others.

[UnfairlyTargeted]

Oh, and I see he knows Carolyn Wright aka Photoattorney.  He was mentioned in her blog.  So clearly there is something underhanded at work here.

[DavidVGoliath]

The image in question is a copy of Peter Lik's image.  I've seen Lik's image in a Vegas gallery.  So it is OK for him to steal from Peter Lik, but now I'm the bad guy?  There are thousands of image of that stupid tree.  Just do a google search and you'll get like 100,000 hits.  Are all of those other copycat photographers who can't make it on their own allowed to copy his image and then extort people with something they copied from someone else???  Where does it stop?  Seriously?!

I'm going to assume you're talking about Schwabel's photograph entitled "The Star of the Garden", which can be viewed here

http://500px.com/photo/2991085/the-star-of-the-garden-by-tom-schwabel

Let's compare and contrast with Peter Lik's shot of the same Japanese Maple

http://www.lik.com/news/newsarticle10/

Oh, wow. I didn't expect them to be vastly different photographs of the same subject. My my.

There are elements to the work of both photographers that are original expressions of creativity and thus quite rightly subject to copyright protection. Also, I took the liberty of running a Google reverse image search on Schwabel's photograph and found just a handful of results.. the majority of which were either on Schwabel's 500px portfolio, or his Fine Art America page.

The only site other than his own that makes use of it is a PDF brochure which is found on the Portland Japanese Garden website - which is highly likely to have been used under license.

So now we're getting close to a clearer picture. You used Tom Schwabel's work, which is plainly, unarguably his and significantly different to Peter Lik's shot. The image has not been seeded across the internet as you have claimed... seriously, dude, stop digging yourself a bigger hole here 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

@ DvG, sometimes it's impossible for some to see the forest, through the trees.. Carolyn Wright is an avid reader of ELI, would not surprise me one bit, if she has this all screen captured, and is considering contacting the artist.. That few hundred request, just might get a big larger now. and BTW, Dvg don't you ever consider taken a picture of a sunset, I've already done that!

[UnfairlyTargeted]

Lets get some facts straight here.  The image is this one:
http://500px.com/photo/1707910/japanese-garden-by-tom-schwabel

And I think you will find he's stolen it from Lik and seeded it all over the net.  It's on BoredPanda and like 1000 other sites.

I know I'm right.  That dickhead photographer is the one who is morally bankrupt here.

[stinger]

I thought this forum was to help shut down this practice of scamming people into paying for things they shouldn't need to pay for.

You are correct about the purpose of this forum.  Unfortunately, with what you have told us, many of us disagree with your assessment that this is something you shouldn't need to pay for.