Sid,

Whether you go after it or not is up to you.

It would not be difficult to find out who to talk to. I could help you with that.

It's standard practice to charge an f-you rate for using your image without permission. You're right, don't bother for $150. You could go for much more than that. I'm not talking about a huge law suit, but you get the address, and then submit an invoice for the use of your image. I have a pro photog friend with experience with that kind of thing in the entertainment industry, if you want, you could speak with him.

Originally Posted by wxwax As I said, the skepticism here is kinda surprising and amusing.

I'm not gonna speak for everybody, only for myself. My only concern is to make sure you do have a bulletproof evidence if you decide to go to court. Otherwise, as an American saying goes, you will up up to a certain creek without a paddle...

I don't have that DVD/recording. But do you think you can pause the play and take the screenshot with your camera (I know it's lame, but it will get you a ballpark)? If not for us, at least for yourself, and, quite possibly, for the court?
I would not care much for the elevation/angle, but if all the windows in those buildings are lighted identically (Difference mode to the rescue!:-), then I say, you got your case solid and can go after them BIG time...

To prove you my attitude, I'm gonna make you a suggestion. You take that screenshot with your camera and tell me it's 100% identical from your POW. I will then go and rent that movie, play it on my PC, take an actual computer screenshot and provide you with an independent expert report (FWIW, I have two degrees, MS in math, BS in computers, plus NAPP membership), which you can then use in court.

How's that for scepticism :-)

Originally Posted by wxwax Also, I don't feel the need to prove it's mine, not here, anyway. As I said, the skepticism here is kinda surprising and amusing.

For me anyway...knowing your own shot on the net is like recognising you own child in a crowd. Its a very natural thing.

Oh, and Sid, I forgot:


Congratulations.

I can take a screenshot from the DVD, where about (on the counter, roughly) is it in the film?

I'll post the result here when I get it captured.

Originally Posted by DavidTO Oh, and Sid, I forgot: Congratulations.

Hear, hear!

Originally Posted by DifferentSeed I bought that DVD a few weeks ago and have watched it a couple of times. It's an excellent eye-opener (pronounced debate starter) at the very least. Anyway, the proceeds from the movie go towards helping the environment. They encourage sharing of the movie in the dvd case itself so as many people as possible see it because people need to see it. Whether they beleive it all or none or 10%, it's worth seeing and they want to spread the word however possible. Given the purpose of the film, and getting as many people to see it as possible, I don't know how much you'd get if you could prove it's yours. But if it is yours, it's awful that it was used without permission, but what a great movie to be seen in! :) Perhaps rather than proving they owe you $150 it might be easier to get them to admit it was yours and they didn't have the right to take it, but to then grant them free use of it (it is for a good cause) for photo credit?

Yes, this is the first thing that crossed my mind. I don't care for a credit, and the movie's for a good cause. But I harbor a sneaky suspicion that someone's pocketing a boatload of cash from this thing, Hollywood being what it is. So I'm not sure if I'm being an idealistic sap by letting it slide.

Originally Posted by gus For me anyway...knowing your own shot on the net is like recognising you own child in a crowd. Its a very natural thing.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by DavidTO Oh, and Sid, I forgot: Congratulations.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by DifferentSeed I can take a screenshot from the DVD, where about (on the counter, roughly) is it in the film? I'll post the result here when I get it captured.

It's in the last quarter of the movie. The shot is full screen, about 60% zoomed into the buildings on the left, the white and red traillights are visible but don't dominate as they do in my image. The round tower is clearly visible.

For me, the shot is a cityscape with traffic trails. For them, it's a buildings shot, they didn't want too much of the traffic. They do a slow pullout. It's up for about 3 seconds or so.

Originally Posted by wxwax I have a DVR.

Then go for it!

In fact, if you don't take action immediately you believe your rights have been infringed, you risk being deemed to have accepted or agreed to the (mis)use.

Sid, I can't tell you what to do, but...

Go get 'em!

And seriously, if they have your picture, how many other images did they heist? Assuming this is indeed your shot, somebody made the executive decision to go out and steal images without asking permission for an award-winning major studio production. What kind of message does that send around Hollywood? Or student film makers that they get away with this? Where does it end?

The image appears at the 1hr: 07min 40-44 second mark in the film. Got a screenshot for you, uploading now.

I also looked at the credits, they credit the still photos to many, many people. If that is your shot it's also possible someone else gave them permission and passed it off as thier own.

Edit: Here is the image:
http://differentseed.smugmug.com/gal...7712#137987712

Originally Posted by wxwax Used it as a voice-over image in the film. You'll notice I don't copyright or right-click protect my images, never thought they were worth it. So it's entirely possible they saw it on the internets and stole it. Nothing unusual about being found, I've discovered. A guy for Fulton Country, GA saw it and bought rights to use it. So, too, did a local insurance gentleman.

Did you put a copyright notice in the EXIF? Without that I can see a lot of people thinking the image was in the public domain. Putting a copyright in the EXIF may not protect a shot but it ought to at least keep honest people honest which, at the end of the day, is all you can really ask for.

Based upon the photo that Differntseed captured from tv and posted here - it is NOT the same photo. Just look at the lights that are on in the buildings and compare them to eachother - not the same. Compare the streaming lights from the passing and approaching vehicles - not the same. Just look at the tall building in the center of the captured photo from tv (No lights on) and compare that to WXWAX's photo - (Just about all the room lights on) - not the same.

The photos are similar but definitly not the same.

P.S. Your photo (wxwax) is so much better than the one shown in the movie.....

Yup, not the same picture. Also notice the two green traffic signs over the highway: in the TV picture, they're under the curved skyscraper; in the other picture, they're off to the right (and there's even a third sign that is missing in the TV version).

Very similar pictures, but not the same.

Originally Posted by ChuckWC Yup, not the same picture. Also notice the two green traffic signs over the highway: in the TV picture, they're under the curved skyscraper; in the other picture, they're off to the right (and there's even a third sign that is missing in the TV version). Very similar pictures, but not the same.

The off-ramp on Sid's image is totally not there on the screenshot.
I guess, I won't be called as an expert to testify...

Well, Sid, congrats on a very fine photo anyway. Yours is betterer.

I'd get legal advice .... more than one opinion. If the case is clear cut that you have been wronged then I would think most attorneys would take the case under contingency.

Well, that's great news that it's not Sid's image. I was upset to think someone was 'stealing' your work. I thought about it and wondered how many of all of our images are 'floating' around out there. I did a search to see if I could find your image on someone else's site and I found this. Almost identical to the angle of your view, but definitely a different shot and no where near as spectacular in it's resulting image.