Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[John]

I think you're underestimating the willingness of some "drivers" to try and 
scam an insurance company.

On 10/26/2017 10:29, Igor PDML-StR wrote:


Ghm...
Given the cost of the windshield replacement, I wonder how much net profit 
they've got.

I googled, and while for a regular car the windshield replacement costs some 
$100-400, for an exotic car like a Ferrari, the bill seems to be exceeding 
$1000 (I saw some $2.5k windshield offering on eBay, and
someone had a blogpost about Aston Martin windshield replacement that was about 
$4.5k)

I also see this estimate of an average pay-off for 1 million views:
https://devumi.com/2016/12/1-million-youtube-views-much-youtube-pays-milestone/
between $300 and $2000.
So, even in the best case scenario, the total net profit seems to be not worth 
the trouble. Am I making a mistake in my estimates?

Igor



  postmaster Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:42:38 -0700 wrote:

Igor PDML-StR  wrote:


I suspect it is not just "publicity", but direct money earning.
If you were to look at his videos, - he is clearly in the business of
earning "click" money from his Youtube videos.
So, I suspect Mark's hypothesis as well as Ann and Rob's
clarifications are correct.



About a year ago a couple of "bros" posted a YouTube video of them
attempting to do a photo shoot with a Ferrari (or some other exotic
car) in the middle of Manhattan by simply stopping in traffic and
going about the shoot. Then a local guy, fed up with the traffic jam,
shows up with a baseball bat and smashes their windscreen in revenge.
The video spread like wildfire for a couple of days. Then someone
discovered the guy with the baseball bat was in on it and the whole
video was a set-up.

I think this dweeb and his "copyright lawsuit" represent just a
half-assed version of the seme thing.




--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[P. J. Alling]

Either they correctly estimated the return on their investment or spent 
a lot of time afterwards drinking heavily, (probably on credit), or more 
likely it was part of their budget this being an advertising gimmick to 
get notoriety rather than direct returns. I've seen a lot of people p*ss 
away more money for less.


On the other hand the current video of interest makes the author look 
like a complete idiot.  I guess any publicity is good publicity...


Unless of course he's actually been sued and is now likely to be sued 
again, in which case he doesn't just /seem/ to be a complete idiot.



On 10/26/2017 10:29 AM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:


Ghm...
Given the cost of the windshield replacement, I wonder how much net 
profit they've got.


I googled, and while for a regular car the windshield replacement 
costs some $100-400, for an exotic car like a Ferrari, the bill seems 
to be exceeding $1000 (I saw some $2.5k windshield offering on eBay, and
someone had a blogpost about Aston Martin windshield replacement that 
was about $4.5k)


I also see this estimate of an average pay-off for 1 million views:
https://devumi.com/2016/12/1-million-youtube-views-much-youtube-pays-milestone/ 


between $300 and $2000.
So, even in the best case scenario, the total net profit seems to be 
not worth the trouble. Am I making a mistake in my estimates?


Igor



 postmaster Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:42:38 -0700 wrote:

Igor PDML-StR  wrote:


I suspect it is not just "publicity", but direct money earning.
If you were to look at his videos, - he is clearly in the business of
earning "click" money from his Youtube videos.
So, I suspect Mark's hypothesis as well as Ann and Rob's
clarifications are correct.



About a year ago a couple of "bros" posted a YouTube video of them
attempting to do a photo shoot with a Ferrari (or some other exotic
car) in the middle of Manhattan by simply stopping in traffic and
going about the shoot. Then a local guy, fed up with the traffic jam,
shows up with a baseball bat and smashes their windscreen in revenge.
The video spread like wildfire for a couple of days. Then someone
discovered the guy with the baseball bat was in on it and the whole
video was a set-up.

I think this dweeb and his "copyright lawsuit" represent just a
half-assed version of the seme thing.



--
America wasn't founded so that we could all be better.
America was founded so we could all be anything we damn well please.
- P.J. O'Rourke


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[Igor PDML-StR]

Ghm...
Given the cost of the windshield replacement, I wonder how much net profit 
they've got.


I googled, and while for a regular car the windshield replacement costs 
some $100-400, for an exotic car like a Ferrari, the bill seems to be 
exceeding $1000 (I saw some $2.5k windshield offering on eBay, and
someone had a blogpost about Aston Martin windshield replacement that was 
about $4.5k)


I also see this estimate of an average pay-off for 1 million views:
https://devumi.com/2016/12/1-million-youtube-views-much-youtube-pays-milestone/
between $300 and $2000.
So, even in the best case scenario, the total net profit seems to be not 
worth the trouble. Am I making a mistake in my estimates?


Igor



 postmaster Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:42:38 -0700 wrote:

Igor PDML-StR  wrote:


I suspect it is not just "publicity", but direct money earning.
If you were to look at his videos, - he is clearly in the business of
earning "click" money from his Youtube videos.
So, I suspect Mark's hypothesis as well as Ann and Rob's
clarifications are correct.



About a year ago a couple of "bros" posted a YouTube video of them
attempting to do a photo shoot with a Ferrari (or some other exotic
car) in the middle of Manhattan by simply stopping in traffic and
going about the shoot. Then a local guy, fed up with the traffic jam,
shows up with a baseball bat and smashes their windscreen in revenge.
The video spread like wildfire for a couple of days. Then someone
discovered the guy with the baseball bat was in on it and the whole
video was a set-up.

I think this dweeb and his "copyright lawsuit" represent just a
half-assed version of the seme thing.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[John]

On 10/25/2017 07:59, Mark Roberts wrote:

https://www.diyphotography.net/internet-entrepreneur-shocked-copyright-owner-sued-stealing-work/


I showed this video to my students on Monday night and everyone
enjoyed it. And some important points about copyright were clarified.

But after having a couple of days to think about it I'm suspicious. He
claims his lawyer told him not to make this video but he obviously did
any way and it's still on line after a couple of weeks - even though
he explicitly calls the person who sued him "malicious" (though
without naming the party whose copyright he infringed). He doesn't
seem like the kind of guy who would be able to shrug off a $35k
lawsuit loss as just an annoying business expense.

I'm starting to suspect this is just a publicity grab and this guy was
never sued at all.
  



If he ripped off the wrong photographer's registered images royalties could be pretty high. 
Perhaps he's still at the stage where he's been served with a DMCA Takedown and a demand for 
$35K in royalties & "his lawyer" told him to STFU while they tried to negotiate 
a lower settlement.

The little bit I could stand to listen to he sounded stupid enough to think a 
stunt like this could intimidate the copyright owner into backing off.


--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[postmaster]

Igor PDML-StR  wrote:

>I suspect it is not just "publicity", but direct money earning.
>If you were to look at his videos, - he is clearly in the business of 
>earning "click" money from his Youtube videos.
>So, I suspect Mark's hypothesis as well as Ann and Rob's 
>clarifications are correct.

About a year ago a couple of "bros" posted a YouTube video of them
attempting to do a photo shoot with a Ferrari (or some other exotic
car) in the middle of Manhattan by simply stopping in traffic and
going about the shoot. Then a local guy, fed up with the traffic jam,
shows up with a baseball bat and smashes their windscreen in revenge.
The video spread like wildfire for a couple of days. Then someone
discovered the guy with the baseball bat was in on it and the whole
video was a set-up.

I think this dweeb and his "copyright lawsuit" represent just a
half-assed version of the seme thing.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[Igor PDML-StR]

I suspect it is not just "publicity", but direct money earning.
If you were to look at his videos, - he is clearly in the business of 
earning "click" money from his Youtube videos.
So, I suspect Mark's hypothesis as well as Ann and Rob's 
clarifications are correct.


It's all consistent with his M.O.:
I listened to a portion of some other video where he apologizes for using 
a dirty language in some prior videos, with lots of blubbering about 
nothing.





ann sanfedele Wed, 25 Oct 2017 05:36:08 -0700 wrote:

Performance art?

On 10/25/2017 8:11 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:

He definitely got some YouTube mileage out of it, isn't that the old 
saying;



There is no such thing as bad publicity

On 25 October 2017 at 22:59, Mark Roberts  
wrote:



https://www.diyphotography.net/internet-entrepreneur-shocked-copyright-owner-sued-stealing-work/

I showed this video to my students on Monday night and everyone
enjoyed it. And some important points about copyright were 
clarified.


But after having a couple of days to think about it I'm 
suspicious. He
claims his lawyer told him not to make this video but he obviously 
did
any way and it's still on line after a couple of weeks - even 
though

he explicitly calls the person who sued him "malicious" (though
without naming the party whose copyright he infringed). He doesn't
seem like the kind of guy who would be able to shrug off a $35k
lawsuit loss as just an annoying business expense.

I'm starting to suspect this is just a publicity grab and this guy 
was

never sued at all.

--
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[ann sanfedele]

Performance art?

On 10/25/2017 8:11 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:

He definitely got some YouTube mileage out of it, isn't that the old saying;

There is no such thing as bad publicity

On 25 October 2017 at 22:59, Mark Roberts  wrote:

https://www.diyphotography.net/internet-entrepreneur-shocked-copyright-owner-sued-stealing-work/

I showed this video to my students on Monday night and everyone
enjoyed it. And some important points about copyright were clarified.

But after having a couple of days to think about it I'm suspicious. He
claims his lawyer told him not to make this video but he obviously did
any way and it's still on line after a couple of weeks - even though
he explicitly calls the person who sued him "malicious" (though
without naming the party whose copyright he infringed). He doesn't
seem like the kind of guy who would be able to shrug off a $35k
lawsuit loss as just an annoying business expense.

I'm starting to suspect this is just a publicity grab and this guy was
never sued at all.

--
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[Rob Studdert]

He definitely got some YouTube mileage out of it, isn't that the old saying;

There is no such thing as bad publicity

On 25 October 2017 at 22:59, Mark Roberts  wrote:
>>https://www.diyphotography.net/internet-entrepreneur-shocked-copyright-owner-sued-stealing-work/
>
> I showed this video to my students on Monday night and everyone
> enjoyed it. And some important points about copyright were clarified.
>
> But after having a couple of days to think about it I'm suspicious. He
> claims his lawyer told him not to make this video but he obviously did
> any way and it's still on line after a couple of weeks - even though
> he explicitly calls the person who sued him "malicious" (though
> without naming the party whose copyright he infringed). He doesn't
> seem like the kind of guy who would be able to shrug off a $35k
> lawsuit loss as just an annoying business expense.
>
> I'm starting to suspect this is just a publicity grab and this guy was
> never sued at all.
>
> --
> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
> www.robertstech.com
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
Rob Studdert (Digital  Image Studio)
Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[Mark Roberts]

>https://www.diyphotography.net/internet-entrepreneur-shocked-copyright-owner-sued-stealing-work/

I showed this video to my students on Monday night and everyone
enjoyed it. And some important points about copyright were clarified.

But after having a couple of days to think about it I'm suspicious. He
claims his lawyer told him not to make this video but he obviously did
any way and it's still on line after a couple of weeks - even though
he explicitly calls the person who sued him "malicious" (though
without naming the party whose copyright he infringed). He doesn't
seem like the kind of guy who would be able to shrug off a $35k
lawsuit loss as just an annoying business expense.

I'm starting to suspect this is just a publicity grab and this guy was
never sued at all. 
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[ann sanfedele]

I agree with Stan - because all those images that Getty  has are images 
also owned by the photographer who
is in the stock agency, whether or not Getty has put a photographers 
name on the image as a watermark.


ann


On 10/24/2017 10:55 AM, Stanley Halpin wrote:

On Oct 23, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Daniel J. Matyola  wrote:

Getty is among those who profit from innocent use of their copyrighted
images.

A client of mine posted on her site an image forwarded to her by a
customer, them was sued by Getty for having the image on her site for less
than two days.


Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


So, your client used an image on her site whose provenance she did not know or 
question?  I wouldn’t consider that “innocent use”, I would consider it 
carelessness or stupidity.

Getty is in the business of selling images. Of course they should sue for 
misuse of their property, usage of their images without permission. They are 
foolish if they do not protect the source of their income. They should be able 
to profit from ANY use of their images, whether “innocent” or not. Saying that 
they “profit from innocent use” paints a rather dark, and in my opinion, a 
rather biased view of Getty.

stan





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[Sandy Harris]

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Stanley Halpin
 wrote:

> Getty is in the business of selling images. Of course they should sue for 
> misuse of their property, ...

Perhaps, but Getty have also been sued for misusing other people's images:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/getty-images-sued-again-over-alleged-misuse-of-over-47000-photos/
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[Daniel J. Matyola]

A client forwarded a trip report and an image to her travel website.  She
should have suspected it was not the client's photo, but she unthinkingly
posted it, and then took it down almost immediately when notified by
Getty.  She knew, and I knew, she had no legal defense, and tried to
negotiated with Getty, but they demanded the full license fee for that
image, which she paid.  She did not do it purposely, but carelessly, but
Getty treated it no differently from an intentional misuse.

I have heard from others that Getty is perhaps a bit over zealous in
collecting fees and penalties, and some suspect it is not part of the
company's business plan.

Years ago, I posted images on a stock site, which was acquired by Getty,  I
received some small fees from the original site, but nothing after Getty
took it over.  That really doesn't surprise me, as the images were not that
fantastic or useful to others.

Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Stanley Halpin <
s...@stans-photography.info> wrote:

>
> > On Oct 23, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Daniel J. Matyola 
> wrote:
> >
> > Getty is among those who profit from innocent use of their copyrighted
> > images.
> >
> > A client of mine posted on her site an image forwarded to her by a
> > customer, them was sued by Getty for having the image on her site for
> less
> > than two days.
> >
> >
> > Dan Matyola
> > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
> >
>
> So, your client used an image on her site whose provenance she did not
> know or question?  I wouldn’t consider that “innocent use”, I would
> consider it carelessness or stupidity.
>
> Getty is in the business of selling images. Of course they should sue for
> misuse of their property, usage of their images without permission. They
> are foolish if they do not protect the source of their income. They should
> be able to profit from ANY use of their images, whether “innocent” or not.
> Saying that they “profit from innocent use” paints a rather dark, and in my
> opinion, a rather biased view of Getty.
>
> stan
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[Stanley Halpin]

> On Oct 23, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Daniel J. Matyola  wrote:
> 
> Getty is among those who profit from innocent use of their copyrighted
> images.
> 
> A client of mine posted on her site an image forwarded to her by a
> customer, them was sued by Getty for having the image on her site for less
> than two days.
> 
> 
> Dan Matyola
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
> 

So, your client used an image on her site whose provenance she did not know or 
question?  I wouldn’t consider that “innocent use”, I would consider it 
carelessness or stupidity.

Getty is in the business of selling images. Of course they should sue for 
misuse of their property, usage of their images without permission. They are 
foolish if they do not protect the source of their income. They should be able 
to profit from ANY use of their images, whether “innocent” or not. Saying that 
they “profit from innocent use” paints a rather dark, and in my opinion, a 
rather biased view of Getty.

stan


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[P. J. Alling]

She trusted her customer, who didn't have the rights to use the photo.  
There should be some defense in that.


This guy took an image from google images, didn't even try to find out 
if it was public domain, was sued, lost and then defamed the 
photographer for defending his rights.   I expect that another lawsuit 
may be in his future.   He's the gift that keeps on giving.



On 10/23/2017 9:51 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:

Getty is among those who profit from innocent use of their copyrighted
images.

A client of mine posted on her site an image forwarded to her by a
customer, them was sued by Getty for having the image on her site for less
than two days.


Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 3:14 AM, Larry Colen  wrote:


To put it into context, the reason I was sued was because I used a picture
that I found on Google Images. Now, I should have known better, yes, in my
position I should know better. But, again, I never really thought that
there are malicious people out there that […] maliciously put pictures on
the Internet.

[People] that copyright pictures that they take and what they do is
they’ll get like a copyright on it, and they’ll put it out on the Internet,
and it’s freely available on the Internet […] and they literally, some
people specifically do this as a job.

https://www.diyphotography.net/internet-entrepreneur-shocked
-copyright-owner-sued-stealing-work/


--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.



--
America wasn't founded so that we could all be better.
America was founded so we could all be anything we damn well please.
- P.J. O'Rourke


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[Daniel J. Matyola]

Getty is among those who profit from innocent use of their copyrighted
images.

A client of mine posted on her site an image forwarded to her by a
customer, them was sued by Getty for having the image on her site for less
than two days.


Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 3:14 AM, Larry Colen  wrote:

> To put it into context, the reason I was sued was because I used a picture
> that I found on Google Images. Now, I should have known better, yes, in my
> position I should know better. But, again, I never really thought that
> there are malicious people out there that […] maliciously put pictures on
> the Internet.
>
> [People] that copyright pictures that they take and what they do is
> they’ll get like a copyright on it, and they’ll put it out on the Internet,
> and it’s freely available on the Internet […] and they literally, some
> people specifically do this as a job.
>
> https://www.diyphotography.net/internet-entrepreneur-shocked
> -copyright-owner-sued-stealing-work/
>
>
> --
> Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Shocked that he was sued for stealing photography

[Larry Colen]

To put it into context, the reason I was sued was because I used a 
picture that I found on Google Images. Now, I should have known better, 
yes, in my position I should know better. But, again, I never really 
thought that there are malicious people out there that […] maliciously 
put pictures on the Internet.


[People] that copyright pictures that they take and what they do is 
they’ll get like a copyright on it, and they’ll put it out on the 
Internet, and it’s freely available on the Internet […] and they 
literally, some people specifically do this as a job.


https://www.diyphotography.net/internet-entrepreneur-shocked-copyright-owner-sued-stealing-work/


--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.