ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: UnfairlyTargeted on August 21, 2014, 01:28:40 AM
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
@ 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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
The guy shut down my website. Like hell I'm going to pay. He owes me!
-
Lets get some facts straight here. The image is this one:
http://500px.com/photo/1707910/japanese-garden-by-tom-schwabel
... and the nearest two similar images on Peter Lik's site are still significantly different from Schwabel's frame
http://www.lik.com/thework/forests-trees/wg943.html
http://www.lik.com/thework/forests-trees/treeoflife.html
I'm not about to go into a pixel-peeping forensic analysis of the differences between Schwabel's and Lik's work, save for the obvious that Schwabel's frame has rust coloured leaves scattered all over the grass, and Lik's frames don't. I could talk about overall composition, framing, apparent focal length and a myriad of other subjective criteria that, in aggregate, make up the significant differences between the two photographer's works.
But I wont. Let's just leave it at this: Schwabel has not appropriated Lik's work. The only thing they have in common is that they are both shots of a photogenic (does that word apply?) Japanese Maple in a well-known garden in Portland, OR.
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.
So your justification for image theft is that others might also have stolen it? We all know how successful that line of defence is ;)
I know I'm right. That dickhead photographer is the one who is morally bankrupt here.
Oh, please, spare me the histrionics. You stole, you got caught, and now you're just pissed about the latter.
The guy shut down my website. Like hell I'm going to pay. He owes me!
Nope, he didn't. Your actions got your site shut down (if that's true) because you probably violated the terms of your hosting provider. All that Schwabel would have done is let your web host know that you were using their service to infringe on his works. If they shut you down, that's on you.
-
@ DvG, sometimes it's impossible for some to see the forest, through the trees..
A stylish, apt pun. Touché, sir :D
BTW, Dvg don't you ever consider taken a picture of a sunset, I've already done that!
... whoops! I'll get my check-book :p
-
my final comment...an apt visual
http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li4cw2PmN91qap0t6o1_500.gif
-
I'm surprised nobody here sees the hypocrisy of this guy. Whatever. I'll take my message elsewhere. By the time I'm done with him, he'll have to pay people to use the crappy images he stole. Holding websites ransom. Maybe I should go into that business. Sounds like everyone here would agree with me.
-
I think you you'll find that a good many of the contributors on this site are creative professionals who are pro-copyright, because copyright law, at its core, helps to protect artists from the predations of those who would otherwise abuse them.
Sure, there are entities who abuse process and sail very close to the wind of what many here consider, in their opinion, to be extortion.
I guess what you didn't reckon on was that, from your own postings, you'd out yourself as someone who seeks to abuse artists of their right to be compensated when you make use of their work.
Remember, you made mention that Schwabel is either connected to or retains the services of a copyright attorney... yet your opening post stated quite clearly that he reached out to you directly in an attempt to seek restitution for your using his work. That's not extortion by any stretch of the imagination - that's someone taking a reasonable first step.
You're obviously dead-set in your opinion that you are right and Schwabel should never have had the temerity to contact you, let alone expect that he be compensated for your breach of his rights. I'm guessing that he moved to contact your web host when you point-blank refused to voluntarily remove his work from your website.
Again, note that he didn't lawyer up at that stage either. He took a proportionate step in response to your intransigence, and - assuming you're being truthful - your web host pulled the plug on your site as a result; as I said before, that's on you.
For what it's worth, I've never heard of a web hosting provider pulling anyone's site for a single breach of the DMCA; they usually have to have received multiple, repeated notifications that you were breaking the law and/or their terms of service... and they're duty-bound to report any claims to you.
If Schwabel now escalates the matter to a copyright attorney, that's also on you. If you decide to stick your head in the sand if or when that happens, that's on you too - and if this whole sorry mess winds up in court and the judge/jury rules against you... well, what can I say?
-
Most "reputable" web-hosts, will simply remove the offending image, s that is all they are required to do, Go-Daddy on the other hand has been known to simply pull the plug on entire domains, and I'm sure this is in their terms of service, buried in the fine print somewhere. The Op's original post as well as his following remarks, makes it very difficult to show any sympathy.. Chances are good if the image in question was removed in the first place, he may have never heard from the artist again, nor has his website pulled down..Just like DvG states, thats on him..
-
Umm, accusing someone of stealing something when it isn't stolen and then telling them to pay or else is extortion. Lawyer or no lawyer. Especially if he seeds images onto the internet in a fishing expedition. I bet he also hacks into websites to plant images too. That's something the FBI would be very interested in.
And since when is $200 fair for a stupid picture on the internet? He should go learn how to take his own pretty pictures and stop trying to harass, defame, and extort honest folks trying to make an honest living in a tight economy. He's messing with my business and my food on the table because he is too lazy to do something and make the world a better place. There's wars going on and all kinds of other stuff that is much more important than this petty crap.
-
Umm, accusing someone of stealing something when it isn't stolen and then telling them to pay or else is extortion. Lawyer or no lawyer. Especially if he seeds images onto the internet in a fishing expedition. I bet he also hacks into websites to plant images too. That's something the FBI would be very interested in.
And since when is $200 fair for a stupid picture on the internet? He should go learn how to take his own pretty pictures and stop trying to harass, defame, and extort honest folks trying to make an honest living in a tight economy. He's messing with my business and my food on the table because he is too lazy to do something and make the world a better place. There's wars going on and all kinds of other stuff that is much more important than this petty crap.
did you license the image? I doubt it..
do you have PROOF he "seeded this image? I also doubt this has happened, or that you have proof.
are you aware by stating he hacks into websites, you could possibly be defaming the artist?
200.00 is the lowest amount a court would award for innocent infringement, which at this time based on your rantings would be a good deal, since it appears you did not bother to remove the image, which now makes this a "willful" infringement..and awards that could be much larger.
I do agree with your final statement, so maybe you should just pony up the money and we can all move on..
-
Suit yourself. I reported him to my state attorney general's office and the BBB. Hopefully others will listen to my message and not fall prey to his sleazy tactics. I'm certain I will prevail.
-
Let us assume that it was stolen from Lik. If you know it was stolen from someone why would you INTENTIONALLY copy it? Is it your rationale that because someone claimed it from Lik, that you should do likewise?
The issue we have on ELI is largely the disproportionate amounts of money being asked and the way it is being extorted from smaller parties. But we tell EVERYONE take down the damned image and don't use it. It seems like you are FIGHTING TO USE it, justifying it because SOMEONE ELSE allegedly copied it.
You say the photo isn't worth much, then give it up. ELI gets enough of a bad rap that we condone copyright infringement. We don't. We also have no love for Getty, Photo Attorney, and the other copyright thugs but you are being foolishly blatant and ignorant thinking we will support your rationale.
The photographer has a right to claim his work and insist others don't use it without his permission or compensation. You were notified about the possible infringement but you are still going to use the image under the pretext that since someone else copied the image, you will too?
Yikes, is what I say.
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.
-
Out of most of the copyright enforcers, I find Carolyn Wright to be among the most respectable. I know that isn't saying much but I would give her more respect than most of the other losers in the business because she is actually passionate about her photography. She lives and breathes it artistically and professionally.
I absolutely disagree with the crazy amounts she puts into her extortion letters. That is my beef with her. Her letters are misleading and heavy-handed but she does not strike me as being as stupid and sloppy as Getty. She is much smarter than the Getty idiots and she handpicks her clients. As far as I am concerned, she is just in the wrong business. Under any other circumstances (and I cannot believe I am saying this publicly), I almost find her likeable. I actually like her photography and find value in them unlike some other crap I see.
You can be suspect of whether her numbers and whether she will sue. But I would NOT be suspect that the person she represents is the actual copyright holder of the image being claimed.
You seriously need to develop the ability to understand the finer distinctions of what we are explaining to you.
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.
-
The guy made a copyright claim to the web host. You were given the opportunity to take the image down. That is what we tell EVERYONE to do... Take the image down, it isn't worth it. You may say the image isn't that valuable but you appeared to have kept the image up forcing the escalation.
The guy shut down my website. Like hell I'm going to pay. He owes me!
-
The central issue is that you clearly admit you don't own the image but you are fighting to use it without permission or compensation. That is what we are trying to tell you.
Also, we tell people the legal system can be tough for the extortionists, likewise, it will be tough for you. Few lawyers will be sympathetic to you but don't take our word for it.
I'm surprised nobody here sees the hypocrisy of this guy. Whatever. I'll take my message elsewhere. By the time I'm done with him, he'll have to pay people to use the crappy images he stole. Holding websites ransom. Maybe I should go into that business. Sounds like everyone here would agree with me.
-
You are making reckless accusations. We rarely accuse anyone of intentionally seeding images with the exception of one person. But even then, there is heavy evidence that corroborates that theory. If you feel the FBI would do something, I beg you to call them and let us know how it turns out.
And regarding taking down your website to make a living, I think the photographer would argue the same thing. I don't agree with them but I also don't agree with you.
And if you don't starting absorbing what we are telling you, someone somewhere you will get slapped hard and no one from ELI will help you. Your opinions and thought process are so out there, you force us to side with the people we mostly despise.
I never thought I would ever see the day I would be arguing with any reader on behalf of the other side!
This has to be an ELI First!
Umm, accusing someone of stealing something when it isn't stolen and then telling them to pay or else is extortion. Lawyer or no lawyer. Especially if he seeds images onto the internet in a fishing expedition. I bet he also hacks into websites to plant images too. That's something the FBI would be very interested in.
And since when is $200 fair for a stupid picture on the internet? He should go learn how to take his own pretty pictures and stop trying to harass, defame, and extort honest folks trying to make an honest living in a tight economy. He's messing with my business and my food on the table because he is too lazy to do something and make the world a better place. There's wars going on and all kinds of other stuff that is much more important than this petty crap.
-
You will prevail in the fact that you will likely not have to pay anything by virtue of the lawsuit process is too expensive for most private photographers to pursue. But that is the extent of it.
Suit yourself. I reported him to my state attorney general's office and the BBB. Hopefully others will listen to my message and not fall prey to his sleazy tactics. I'm certain I will prevail.
-
Of course he's seeded the internet. He's been hacking into pages and planting images to surprise and scare people. How else does "his" "watermarked" image end up on so many sites??? Occum's razor says he put the images there. Even if I took down the image, I'd still owe him? How can that be anything other than extortion? Look at the crap he spews on his pages about image theft. This guy is a psychopath and social parasite. I came here in good faith to expose him and I've been surprised at some of the responses, but I am glad I am starting to get through to people. And I'm not worried about being sued. I'm just trying to warn other people of the scam this guy is making a living by doing.
-
We really are not trying to attack you but you are creating conspiracies in your head or just desperately trying to justify your position.
"Hacking" websites is no easy feat for even the most technical person which I consider myself. There is no photographer able to hack anything. And if he could hack, he would find more efficient ways of profiting because extorting people for money through imagery is tough work with ELI around.
It isn't Occum's razor. I know what that is. You are delusional and you are helping make ELI history. IN the six years of existence, we have never encountered anyone like you who so fervently defend and justify your egregious position.
Your best bet is to just call it a day. They won't likely collect from you and just be content with that. The other arguments just ain't going to wash.
You have exposed the photographer, his name is listed here. Thank you for that. But you will never hear any of us on ELI to say keep using the image. We will always say "TAKE THE FUCKING IMAGE DOWN NOW! not tomorrow or the next day. You do it immediately and start cleaning up all websites of images you don't own or license. Period end of story. And they need to take it as a learning experience.
I was recently forced to tell someone on an ELI Support Call I never wanted to hear from him again about any infringements on any of his websites. He had crossed the line as far as I was concerned. If it ever came up again, he would not be welcome on ELI and would not receive any support from us.
Of course he's seeded the internet. He's been hacking into pages and planting images to surprise and scare people. How else does "his" "watermarked" image end up on so many sites??? Occum's razor says he put the images there. Even if I took down the image, I'd still owe him? How can that be anything other than extortion? Look at the crap he spews on his pages about image theft. This guy is a psychopath and social parasite. I came here in good faith to expose him and I've been surprised at some of the responses, but I am glad I am starting to get through to people. And I'm not worried about being sued. I'm just trying to warn other people of the scam this guy is making a living by doing.
-
I'm going to pass over some of your rant and focus on just a few choice sections.
Occum's razor says he put the images there. Even if I took down the image, I'd still owe him? How can that be anything other than extortion? Look at the crap he spews on his pages about image theft.
Here's why: professional photographers license their images. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of licensing, as you may have had cause to need a few in your time such as a firearms license, fishing license and so on. Licenses, or permits as they are often also known as, grant you permission to engage in a specific activity for a certain period of time.
Licenses sit at the very core of how many professional artists earn their income - whether photographers, musicians, filmmakers, designers... especially independent, self-employed ones. They create a work and then, under terms agreed in advance, they allow others to make use of it and, in return, receive payment which is commonly known as a licensing fee.
In using Schwabel's photograph on your own website without his knowledge or permission, you avoided paying for a license to do so. Whether you profited from the use of it is of no relevance - for the same reasons that, if you purchased a fishing license and didn't catch anything all season... well, shucks, that's too bad.
Getting back on point: so Schwabel discovered that you used his photograph and asked you to stop. He also asked that you pay him for the fact that you had been using it for whatever period of time it was between the date of you uploading it to your website and the date he contacted you - which, from your postings, I'm guessing was $200.
That's really quite fair and reasonable, all things considered. You obviously think otherwise but, again, that has little relevance to what appear to be the facts. You don't get to haggle over the cost of a meal after you've eaten it... heck, sit down in any restaurant and, even if you just toy with your steak dinner and have a few nibbles, you'll still be faced with the bill... and you can imagine what would happen if you screamed "Fuck, man, I was just peckish... I could have gone to f'n McDonalds! No way I'm paying that!!!"
Not a great analogy, but it's close enough to how you're attempting to wriggle out of paying for something you had made use of - in this case, Schwabel's photograph.
This guy is a psychopath and social parasite.
Cough... pot, kettle... cough. (just my opinion)
I came here in good faith to expose him and I've been surprised at some of the responses, but I am glad I am starting to get through to people.
Oh, your're getting through to people alright - but perhaps not in the way you'd like to ;)
And I'm not worried about being sued. I'm just trying to warn other people of the scam this guy is making a living by doing.
Well, karma might just grant you your wish regarding the first part - and if you really believe that reaching out directly to people who have made use of his images and asking them to stop, and pay a small fee for the prior use, is a scam... wow.
Let me reiterate: his first step was not to lawyer up. Neither was his second step (going to your web host), which would have been a taken only if you didn't voluntarily cease using the photograph. He didn't put a four, five or six figure demand to you... but now your own actions have exposed you to the possibility of a lawsuit for wilful infringement, where the damages can be as high as six figures, along with reasonable attorney's fees and costs being awarded to the prevailing party.
That dose of karma, when it comes around, might be something you'll rue for a long time.
-
UnfairlyTargeted -- this site is supportive of people that really are unfairly targeted. But your insistence on calling the photographer a plagiarist, a thief and a super-hacker makes you appear to have no credibility.
Seriously, dude. You took an image that didn't belong to you. Man up and take some personal responsibility. Take the image that isn't yours off your site and make a reasonable offer to pay the photographer.
-
You are missing the point of everyone trying to help you here. it is one thing to warn people to be careful and avoid using an image but you need to take the image down if you have not done so already, regardless of the value....it's not yours. ELI tells everyone if you didn't take the photo, license the photo or know for sure it's in the public domain then DON'T use it. There is a world of difference in taking an image down, then fighting the good fight as opposed to your approach. Just saying.....
-
You are missing the point of everyone trying to help you here. it is one thing to warn people to be careful and avoid using an image but you need to take the image down if you have not done so already, regardless of the value....it's not yours. ELI tells everyone if you didn't take the photo, license the photo or know for sure it's in the public domain then DON'T use it. There is a world of difference in taking an image down, then fighting the good fight as opposed to your approach. Just saying.....
hahaha, his web host removed the image for him..along with the entire site. I completely understand that sometimes people will do say things that are way over the top in the heat of the moment...perhaps the OP will rethink his posisition and come to the conclusion, that paying a "few hundred" bucks to a photographer is not only the right thing to do, but would also be the smart thing to do.
-
You are missing the point of everyone trying to help you here. it is one thing to warn people to be careful and avoid using an image but you need to take the image down if you have not done so already, regardless of the value....it's not yours. ELI tells everyone if you didn't take the photo, license the photo or know for sure it's in the public domain then DON'T use it. There is a world of difference in taking an image down, then fighting the good fight as opposed to your approach. Just saying.....
hahaha, his web host removed the image for him..along with the entire site. I completely understand that sometimes people will do say things that are way over the top in the heat of the moment...perhaps the OP will rethink his posisition and come to the conclusion, that paying a "few hundred" bucks to a photographer is not only the right thing to do, but would also be the smart thing to do.
Well, guess he had to pee on the electric fence after all ::)