I'm in no position to offer legal advice, so take this with a grain of salt. If it were me, I'd probably write back and say that there were no sales, and I never had any intention to sell pictures of her sculptures. I would include a printout of the Sales History view from the tools menu which would prove there were no sales. Then I'd leave it at that. I wouldn't spend a dime on legal fees defending this. The ball would be in their court to show that there were damages to the artist, and they cannot do that because there weren't any damages as you've already proven. My gut feeling tells me the lawyer and artist are trying to scam you out of $1,000 and they will not follow-up now that the pictures are gone. But again, that's just me.
That being said, perhaps Smugmug will step up to the plate and offer some legal assistance from their lawyers. You've brought up a very interesting issue that may have far-reaching implications for all Smugmug customers. If the default buy button precludes fair-use protection of your photographs, it seems like they should either warn you, or change the default. I hate the "Caution Hot Coffee" kind of legal disclaimers as much as the next guy, but you may have stumbled on to a real problem here. The default behavior shouldn't leave us open for legal harassment when we've done nothing wrong like this.
I'm in no position to offer legal advice, so take this with a grain of salt. If it were me, I'd probably write back and say that there were no sales, and I never had any intention to sell pictures of her sculptures. I would include a printout of the Sales History view from the tools menu which would prove there were no sales. Then I'd leave it at that. I wouldn't spend a dime on legal fees defending this. The ball would be in their court to show that there were damages to the artist, and they cannot do that because there weren't any damages as you've already proven. My gut feeling tells me the lawyer and artist are trying to scam you out of $1,000 and they will not follow-up now that the pictures are gone. But again, that's just me.
That being said, perhaps Smugmug will step up to the plate and offer some legal assistance from their lawyers. You've brought up a very interesting issue that may have far-reaching implications for all Smugmug customers. If the default buy button precludes fair-use protection of your photographs, it seems like they should either warn you, or change the default. I hate the "Caution Hot Coffee" kind of legal disclaimers as much as the next guy, but you may have stumbled on to a real problem here. The default behavior shouldn't leave us open for legal harassment when we've done nothing wrong like this.
Regards,
-joel
Joel, my gut feeling is the same. I think they are just hoping I am a sucker and pay them $1000 for a form letter! There are no damages, no sales were made. I have never filed a copyright for any images in my life, much less images I took at a local art festival event! Now, I do have my copyright mark on all my photos, which is a default I have set up with SmugMug. When I upload, it puts them there.
SmugMug was kind enough to respond and tell me how to view my entire sales history in my control panel, which I did. NO SALES! Who ever would have thought that would be a good thing!
The only reason I even turned the sales module on was because I had done a TFCD photo shoot with some models, and the event organizer said we are welcome to "market" prints to them through our websites if we like. So I went ahead and upgraded to PRO, this was WELL AFTER the original pics were uploaded, and turned on the "buy" button. I guess I turned it on for all galleries, I dunno. I also added a blurb about being able to buy prints to my gallery template, and applied it to all photos, without even thinking there was an issue. This was just really for my models, in case they wanted prints. I have since learned I can turn all these things on and off by each gallery if I like -- though it is more time consuming to do so. At the time, I went "pro" with my SmugMug account and was able to set pricing, I never in a million years thought I needed to go back and worry about pics I had taken at public events and places I had visited! It is just not something I thought about, as I mostly just upload those pics to share with friends and family.
SmugMug said they couldn't offer legal advice in a matter like this, not that I asked them for any. Was just wondering how to get "proof" that I had made no sales.
Funny, the only pictures I've ever sold are pictures of the Hoover Dam, and I've sold a boat-load of them. Now I'm hoping the US Federal Government doesn't sue me! :eek1
But seriously, best of luck, Nora. I hope this BS doesn't cost you any lost sleep or money and that it will blow over soon.
I think over all you are getting some good advice and support.
Disclaimer: I am not now nor have I ever been a shyster.
That said it's hard to believe FL law would require anyone to respond to a letter / request / demand in 3 or 4 days.
Taking photos is not illegal. The definition of public and private can be fuzzy. I would argue that an art fair open to the public without charge is public, and you are free to take all the photos you want. Posting photos taken in public is not against any US law I am aware of.
Points in your favor:
1. You spoke with the artist and took photos in front of her, and she gave you her business card. That is tacit approval for the photography.
2. The location was public.
3. The images were only snap shot quality, not presented as fine art and not salable in reality. The image was posted along with many other images of snap shot quality of the event, people, and general event atmosphere.
4. The activated buy button on your website was a technical issue. There was no deliberate attempt to sell or profit from the image.
5. When notified you immediately took action. While you did need to correct the technical glitch of the activated buy button, you did not have to remove the image from your website, but did so anyway.
6. You did give credit to the artist and provided a link to her website. This basically indicates a lack of deceptive behavior, and was only possible because the artist herself gave you her business card at the time you taking the photographs.
Cons:
1. Your buy button was activated.
2. You present yourself as a professional photographer not simply as a
mom.
3. You are an honest person trying to do the right thing. (While I do encourage this, it can be used against you in a court of law.)
4. The shysters sending the demand letter don't care if it was a mistake or technical error. They want the money.
Now my advice.........remember my disclaimer.
If you have or can restore the entire event gallery I would do so immediately. This puts the snap shot into context. Don't post it just have it.
Do not act like a victim! Do not send anything to them without very careful thought. If you send them anything be very brief, do not admit to anything.
So far every thing you have posted reeks of fear and guilt.
I would recommend you not be your own advocate. You need someone else to help you in that department.
If possible consult with an attorney.
There is no way to determine if they in fact plan on perusing the money demand or have just thrown it in as a scare tactic.Pesonaaly I can't see how a judge could award the artist anything, but remember courts are not always about right or wrong, justice or fairness.
Do not allow others to take your joy away from you. This is only a very minor bump in the road.
Funny, the only pictures I've ever sold are pictures of the Hoover Dam, and I've sold a boat-load of them. Now I'm hoping the US Federal Government doesn't sue me! :eek1
But seriously, best of luck, Nora. I hope this BS doesn't cost you any lost sleep or money and that it will blow over soon.
-joel
Joel,
As part owner of the dam I believe you have the right to take photos and do what ever you want with them.
So sorry this has happened, but you will probably come out of this OK.
First: A law firm is in no position to demand fees from you unless they are awarded by a court. Period. They are simply bullying.
Second: They also can't require you to respond by any given date, or indeed, at all. Only courts can compel response. So take your time.
Third: You absolutely must consult a lawyer before giving any response at all. Look in your community for a free legal aid clinic if there is one or spend some money on a consultation.
Fourth: It is exceedingly unlikely that a reputable law firm would go to court with such a weak case, but only another lawyer has the credibility to make that clear. Once you explain the situation to your own lawyer, he or she will know perfectly well how to craft a response that says "piss off" in Latin, and that will be the end of it.
So sorry this has happened, but you will probably come out of this OK.
First: A law firm is in no position to demand fees from you unless they are awarded by a court. Period. They are simply bullying.
Second: They also can't require you to respond by any given date, or indeed, at all. Only courts can compel response. So take your time.
Third: You absolutely must consult a lawyer before giving any response at all. Look in your community for a free legal aid clinic if there is one or spend some money on a consultation.
Fourth: It is exceedingly unlikely that a reputable law firm would go to court with such a weak case, but only another lawyer has the credibility to make that clear. Once you explain the situation to your own lawyer, he or she will know perfectly well how to craft a response that says "piss off" in Latin, and that will be the end of it.
I hear stuff like this all the time, since my uncle is a lawyer and won't shut up
I may have missed it, but how did the "law firm" in question get your address to send certified mail without a subpoena?
Not an Attorney
Not attorney but have been involved in too much legal BS.
A law office can't make you pay. You have to be found guilty, it's in the Constitution. Or you can have a settlement, this is what th firm wants you to pay a grand for.
That said taking you to court will cost more than the attorney is willing to risk. Especially since there were no damages.(you did not sale anything or cause the B^!c# to not sale her sculptor). the $1000 is sucker money.
You are stressed about this so I would pay an attorney a couple of hundred to respond. You can offer a trade for portraits. I have done work for attorneys and they are all pretty vain and would love to have updated portraits for their firm.
Your attroney will write a letter back stating something like you are not guilty and look forward to defending you in court.
The attorney will then go to there client and make a decision to proceed. Which they would have to prove damages of over several thousand of dollars to make it worth it.
Here's another approach which occurs to me. Maybe you could contact the artist directly and suggest this is all a misunderstanding (without apology, or admitting any wrong doing.) Offer to take some nice promotional pictures of her sculptures free of charge as a good-will gesture if she calls-off her dog.
Here's another approach which occurs to me. Maybe you could contact the artist directly and suggest this is all a misunderstanding (without apology, or admitting any wrong doing.) Offer to take some nice promotional pictures of her sculptures free of charge as a good-will gesture if she calls-off her dog.
Personally, I wouldn't do that. At that point they're still getting something out of you for free when nothing was entitled in the first place.
Secondly, if this had happened to me the first thing I would have done is private communication with a few select people who might have some insight. That failing I would have contacted legal aid or a lawyer. Then I would have got it resolved. LAST THING I WOULD HAVE DONE IS COMMENTED IT ON A PUBLIC FORUM BEFORE ANY RESOLUTION.
Personally, I wouldn't do that. At that point they're still getting something out of you for free when nothing was entitled in the first place.
[...]
Good luck. Get a lawyer. Stand your ground.
So instead you're going to spend hundreds of dollars of cold hard cash to get a lawyer involved, when the charges are total BS and they're never going to win anything anyhow? Personally, I'd rather resolve the dispute amicably and take a few pictures which is what I like to do anyway if I could. I see no harm in trying, but that's just me.
So instead you're going to spend hundreds of dollars of cold hard cash to get a lawyer involved, when the charges are total BS and they're never going to win anything anyhow? Personally, I'd rather resolve the dispute amicably and take a few pictures which is what I like to do anyway if I could. I see no harm in trying, but that's just me.
That's fine if the other artist hadn't already retained counsel. However, the other artist has taken that step. The OP would do well to retain counsel herself for helping resolve the matter and also learning the legal issues from a professional.
So instead you're going to spend hundreds of dollars of cold hard cash to get a lawyer involved, when the charges are total BS and they're never going to win anything anyhow? Personally, I'd rather resolve the dispute amicably and take a few pictures which is what I like to do anyway if I could. I see no harm in trying, but that's just me.
In principle, I agree with you Joel. However, the artist has demonstrated no interest in resolving the dispute amicably. If anything, she has acted duplicitously. Maybe she can't sell her sculpture and sues people for a living. Or is married to a lawyer who doesn't have enough business. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to talk to her, but only after getting clear guidance from a lawyer on what to say and, importantly, what not to say.
If they wanted to resolve it amicably, they would have sent her an email or given her a phone call.
I agree with the others - do not communicate with this person without the advice of an attorney.
While you may not have the money, I think you're in a precarious enough situation that it's worth finding the money. While I don't think they would win, I think they could cost you a lot more than a couple hundred in legal fees if you let things proceed without an attorney.
Wade Williams
Nikon D300, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 70-300/4.5-5.6, SB800
So instead you're going to spend hundreds of dollars of cold hard cash to get a lawyer involved, when the charges are total BS and they're never going to win anything anyhow? Personally, I'd rather resolve the dispute amicably and take a few pictures which is what I like to do anyway if I could. I see no harm in trying, but that's just me.
If the other party has already retained legal counsel and then you attempt to communicate directly and resolve it yourself you most certainly can do more harm to yourself.
No, I have no intention of speaking to this "artist". I have no idea why she didn't contact me and ask me to take them down. If I found someone using one of my photos that is what I would do, and THAT is a DIRECT violation of copyright, but I guess I am a different type of person.
Interesting question about how they got my address, however. Wow, I really don't know! I assumed it was from my website, but I see that my website only gives my phone and fax number. I do have a link to my resume on my "About Me" page, but that lists my PO Box, not my home address! This letter came to my home address, so now I am REALLY perplexed! How DID they get my home address? WTH?
I have contacted a couple of attorneys today to inquire about rates, but none has called me back.
No, I have no intention of speaking to this "artist". I have no idea why she didn't contact me and ask me to take them down. If I found someone using one of my photos that is what I would do, and THAT is a DIRECT violation of copyright, but I guess I am a different type of person.
Interesting question about how they got my address, however. Wow, I really don't know! I assumed it was from my website, but I see that my website only gives my phone and fax number. I do have a link to my resume on my "About Me" page, but that lists my PO Box, not my home address! This letter came to my home address, so now I am REALLY perplexed! How DID they get my home address? WTH?
I have contacted a couple of attorneys today to inquire about rates, but none has called me back.
Nora,
It's not hard to find at all. Out of curiosity, I found what I'm guessing is your home address in 27 seconds. I won't post it to verify though.
And that's with free services - an attorney might use a commercial service which would be even more accurate.
Wade Williams
Nikon D300, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 70-300/4.5-5.6, SB800
It's not hard to find at all. Out of curiosity, I found what I'm guessing is your home address in 27 seconds. I won't post it to verify though.
And that's with free services - an attorney might use a commercial service which would be even more accurate.
Yeah it is not hard.....I was communicating with a young lady in the Czech Republic and asked her if I had her street address correct......I simply did an internet search .....and if your phone an fax are attached that is so much easier.......
BTW she got a kick out of me finding her Dad and Moms address and phone......got called a real Dick Tracy......had to tell her I came up in a cop family (Dad was until he passed....brother still is....)
Just did a copyright search of my name, with the copyright office, so I had proof that I had never attempted to copyright any of my photos. Which, of course, came up clean.
Then searched her name. Wow. All of the works in question were OFFICIALLY copyrighted with the copyright office in the last couple of weeks. They all have official copyrights starting between March 25 and up to the day before the lawyer drafted the letter. Now, I know, I know, before anyone says it, when we create works (i.e. take that pic) they are considered copyright to us, and I'm sure it applies to the creation of a piece of art as well. I just found it INTERESTING that they were all copy written officially right before this letter was drafted.
No return calls from any lawyers today. Will try again tomorrow.
It sounds to me, that it 'could' be a scam. If the artist watched you and other photographers taking pictures of her work and she didn't post any signs or show any objections, what you need to ask yourself is why has the artist suddenly changed their mind?
Just write a letter back stating this, contact SM for clarification that no sales have been made and say that the photographs were in no way financially damaging to the artist in question. You won't hear from them again.
Sorry this has happend to you, it's why I make it a personal rule that when I do street photography (or anywhere public) I don't photograph people's work or at markets.
I can totally see what happened here. The artist didn't go to all that work to scam you. Instead, she completely misunderstood your intentions, and was genuinely worried that you were trying to profit from her art. What most likely happened was a casual conversation with an over zealous lawyer who filled her full of fears and told her she MUST take immediate action to copyright the works of art, then send you a cease and desist letter. She's being scammed by the shyster lawyer. She's probably put a ton of money and time into this already at his advice (and profit). And all for what? A misunderstanding. So now you'll go out and pay big bucks to a lawyer who will probably advise some escalation designed to make both lawyers rich as you and the other woman are just pawns on their chess board.
And I just don't get it...maybe I am too new to all this copyright stuff, but if I found someone had swiped a picture I had taken I would have just contacted them and told them to quit using it. I guess I am too nice.
And I so wish I could show you the pictures, but obviously that is not happening. THEY SIMPLY WEREN'T THAT GREAT! They were merely snapshots of her artwork in her booth! Why would anyone even consider purchasing that? Its not like I staged the "products", took great care with lighting, etc. We walked around her booth, like I did may other artists that day, and took pictures of some interesting sculptures. My goodness you can even see the tables they are sitting on. We are NOT talking about great works of art here (my pictures I mean). And, when visiting her website, from what I can tell, she has sold every single one of them to a buyer already, so not sure how I could have damaged her business in any way.* I am guessing they are one of a kind pieces and she doesn't mass produce.
*And who knows, maybe one of the buyers saw her work on MY website and used the link I provided and bought it. ! Of course, I am sure that didn't happen, just saying.
Just did a copyright search of my name, with the copyright office, so I had proof that I had never attempted to copyright any of my photos. Which, of course, came up clean.
Then searched her name. Wow. All of the works in question were OFFICIALLY copyrighted with the copyright office in the last couple of weeks. They all have official copyrights starting between March 25 and up to the day before the lawyer drafted the letter. Now, I know, I know, before anyone says it, when we create works (i.e. take that pic) they are considered copyright to us, and I'm sure it applies to the creation of a piece of art as well. I just found it INTERESTING that they were all copy written officially right before this letter was drafted.
No return calls from any lawyers today. Will try again tomorrow.
After reading this, what is sounds like is the artist went through a lawyer to file official copywrights on her work. Part of the process with the lawyer's office was probably to "google" her name to see if anyone had violated the copywrights in any way (it's free and fast, easy money for the lawyer's office). Since you gave credit to her on your smugmug page, the keywords came up in google. The lawyer's office investigated your site, found your number and, in turn, found your address.
Moral of the story: don't give credit where credit is due
And SMART. Lawyers love to create problems that don't exist so that people can pay to fix them. The artist's mistake was talking to a lawyer. And you can bet the first thing out of his mouth was to tell her not to talk to you. Of course not! Because then you'd expose the fact that there was never any issue and there would be no need for him.
Just a little background, in case someone happens upon this thread, as to how this all played out, so they think twice before taking the steps I did that led to this:
I received my camera as a gift Christmas of 2008. A lower end DSLR. I had always like taking pictures (on P&S cameras), and everyone told me I had an "eye" for photography, so my husband bought me this to take me to the next level of learning.
On the advice of a family member who uses SmugMug, I decided to host pictures here. I don't believe I even initially had the "buy" button turned on at all, now that I think about it. I didn't even go "pro" with SM until about six months later.
Went to the art festival three months later and took snapshots with my new camera as we were walking around. Posted them to SM for family and friends to view. Over the course of the year, I continued to post pics I had taken.
In December of 2009 I did a TFCD model shoot with a photography club locally here. While the shoot was TFCD, the organizers told the photographers that if they wanted to sell prints to the models from their websites they could. I went ahead and set up pricing for portraits and applied it globally, never even thinking about all the pictures I had taken all through the year getting this setting applied to them. Who would have thought it would matter...most of my shots weren't exactly the type of photographs someone would buy and hang on a wall or anything. But, hey if someone liked a flower shot I took or something, great.
In January of 2010 I decided I would try my hand at some "artsy" type stuff and started an "art series" on my site. Then I set up pricing for the "nicer" stuff SmugMug offers, like wraps, giclees, etc., not even realizing that this would be applied globally. So, my thought is she is thinking I am selling "fine art prints" of those snapshots I took at the art festival! People, they really ARE snapshots. You can see the tables the items are sitting on and everything. They aren't perfectly centered, or straight, or even particularly good shots.
So, when applying this GLOBALLY on SM, be sure to check and make sure you want to do that for each gallery. That is where I screwed up. I never in my wildest dreams would think a snapshot from any of the events I have taken pictures at, or even places I had visited, would sell...and of course, none have. But, I figured the option to sell some of my natures shots would be cool. I wish I had just applied it to those galleries only, obviously.
I have, of course, turned off the "buy" button on my website for everything now. Did it at the same time I took down pics of EVERY single shot at that art festival that contained any artists work. I do not need this kind of stress. I have never sold anything anyway, so I am out nothing my doing so. If someone stumbles upon a nature pictures or something I have taken and they like it, they can contact me.
Comments
That being said, perhaps Smugmug will step up to the plate and offer some legal assistance from their lawyers. You've brought up a very interesting issue that may have far-reaching implications for all Smugmug customers. If the default buy button precludes fair-use protection of your photographs, it seems like they should either warn you, or change the default. I hate the "Caution Hot Coffee" kind of legal disclaimers as much as the next guy, but you may have stumbled on to a real problem here. The default behavior shouldn't leave us open for legal harassment when we've done nothing wrong like this.
Regards,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
Joel, my gut feeling is the same. I think they are just hoping I am a sucker and pay them $1000 for a form letter! There are no damages, no sales were made. I have never filed a copyright for any images in my life, much less images I took at a local art festival event! Now, I do have my copyright mark on all my photos, which is a default I have set up with SmugMug. When I upload, it puts them there.
SmugMug was kind enough to respond and tell me how to view my entire sales history in my control panel, which I did. NO SALES! Who ever would have thought that would be a good thing!
The only reason I even turned the sales module on was because I had done a TFCD photo shoot with some models, and the event organizer said we are welcome to "market" prints to them through our websites if we like. So I went ahead and upgraded to PRO, this was WELL AFTER the original pics were uploaded, and turned on the "buy" button. I guess I turned it on for all galleries, I dunno. I also added a blurb about being able to buy prints to my gallery template, and applied it to all photos, without even thinking there was an issue. This was just really for my models, in case they wanted prints. I have since learned I can turn all these things on and off by each gallery if I like -- though it is more time consuming to do so. At the time, I went "pro" with my SmugMug account and was able to set pricing, I never in a million years thought I needed to go back and worry about pics I had taken at public events and places I had visited! It is just not something I thought about, as I mostly just upload those pics to share with friends and family.
SmugMug said they couldn't offer legal advice in a matter like this, not that I asked them for any. Was just wondering how to get "proof" that I had made no sales.
Website • Blog • Facebook • Twitter
But seriously, best of luck, Nora. I hope this BS doesn't cost you any lost sleep or money and that it will blow over soon.
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
I think over all you are getting some good advice and support.
Disclaimer: I am not now nor have I ever been a shyster.
That said it's hard to believe FL law would require anyone to respond to a letter / request / demand in 3 or 4 days.
Taking photos is not illegal. The definition of public and private can be fuzzy. I would argue that an art fair open to the public without charge is public, and you are free to take all the photos you want. Posting photos taken in public is not against any US law I am aware of.
Points in your favor:
1. You spoke with the artist and took photos in front of her, and she gave you her business card. That is tacit approval for the photography.
2. The location was public.
3. The images were only snap shot quality, not presented as fine art and not salable in reality. The image was posted along with many other images of snap shot quality of the event, people, and general event atmosphere.
4. The activated buy button on your website was a technical issue. There was no deliberate attempt to sell or profit from the image.
5. When notified you immediately took action. While you did need to correct the technical glitch of the activated buy button, you did not have to remove the image from your website, but did so anyway.
6. You did give credit to the artist and provided a link to her website. This basically indicates a lack of deceptive behavior, and was only possible because the artist herself gave you her business card at the time you taking the photographs.
Cons:
1. Your buy button was activated.
2. You present yourself as a professional photographer not simply as a
mom.
3. You are an honest person trying to do the right thing. (While I do encourage this, it can be used against you in a court of law.)
4. The shysters sending the demand letter don't care if it was a mistake or technical error. They want the money.
Now my advice.........remember my disclaimer.
If you have or can restore the entire event gallery I would do so immediately. This puts the snap shot into context. Don't post it just have it.
Do not act like a victim! Do not send anything to them without very careful thought. If you send them anything be very brief, do not admit to anything.
So far every thing you have posted reeks of fear and guilt.
I would recommend you not be your own advocate. You need someone else to help you in that department.
If possible consult with an attorney.
There is no way to determine if they in fact plan on perusing the money demand or have just thrown it in as a scare tactic.Pesonaaly I can't see how a judge could award the artist anything, but remember courts are not always about right or wrong, justice or fairness.
Do not allow others to take your joy away from you. This is only a very minor bump in the road.
Good luck and keep us posted!
Sam
Joel,
As part owner of the dam I believe you have the right to take photos and do what ever you want with them.
Sam
So sorry this has happened, but you will probably come out of this OK.
First: A law firm is in no position to demand fees from you unless they are awarded by a court. Period. They are simply bullying.
Second: They also can't require you to respond by any given date, or indeed, at all. Only courts can compel response. So take your time.
Third: You absolutely must consult a lawyer before giving any response at all. Look in your community for a free legal aid clinic if there is one or spend some money on a consultation.
Fourth: It is exceedingly unlikely that a reputable law firm would go to court with such a weak case, but only another lawyer has the credibility to make that clear. Once you explain the situation to your own lawyer, he or she will know perfectly well how to craft a response that says "piss off" in Latin, and that will be the end of it.
I hear stuff like this all the time, since my uncle is a lawyer and won't shut up
I may have missed it, but how did the "law firm" in question get your address to send certified mail without a subpoena?
http://silversx80.smugmug.com/
Olympus E-M5, 12-50mm, 45mm f/1.8
Some legacy OM lenses and an OM-10
Not attorney but have been involved in too much legal BS.
A law office can't make you pay. You have to be found guilty, it's in the Constitution. Or you can have a settlement, this is what th firm wants you to pay a grand for.
That said taking you to court will cost more than the attorney is willing to risk. Especially since there were no damages.(you did not sale anything or cause the B^!c# to not sale her sculptor). the $1000 is sucker money.
You are stressed about this so I would pay an attorney a couple of hundred to respond. You can offer a trade for portraits. I have done work for attorneys and they are all pretty vain and would love to have updated portraits for their firm.
Your attroney will write a letter back stating something like you are not guilty and look forward to defending you in court.
The attorney will then go to there client and make a decision to proceed. Which they would have to prove damages of over several thousand of dollars to make it worth it.
DavidBroadwell.com, My Smugmug Home
Link to my Smugmug site
Personally, I wouldn't do that. At that point they're still getting something out of you for free when nothing was entitled in the first place.
Secondly, if this had happened to me the first thing I would have done is private communication with a few select people who might have some insight. That failing I would have contacted legal aid or a lawyer. Then I would have got it resolved. LAST THING I WOULD HAVE DONE IS COMMENTED IT ON A PUBLIC FORUM BEFORE ANY RESOLUTION.
Good luck. Get a lawyer. Stand your ground.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
So instead you're going to spend hundreds of dollars of cold hard cash to get a lawyer involved, when the charges are total BS and they're never going to win anything anyhow? Personally, I'd rather resolve the dispute amicably and take a few pictures which is what I like to do anyway if I could. I see no harm in trying, but that's just me.
Link to my Smugmug site
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
In principle, I agree with you Joel. However, the artist has demonstrated no interest in resolving the dispute amicably. If anything, she has acted duplicitously. Maybe she can't sell her sculpture and sues people for a living. Or is married to a lawyer who doesn't have enough business. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to talk to her, but only after getting clear guidance from a lawyer on what to say and, importantly, what not to say.
I agree with the others - do not communicate with this person without the advice of an attorney.
While you may not have the money, I think you're in a precarious enough situation that it's worth finding the money. While I don't think they would win, I think they could cost you a lot more than a couple hundred in legal fees if you let things proceed without an attorney.
Nikon D300, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 70-300/4.5-5.6, SB800
Visit my (non-photography-related) blog!
Body: Canon 350D, Canon 7D
Lenses: Canon 35mm f/1.4L, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-4.5, Quantaray 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6, Quantaray 600-1000mm f/9.6-16
Flashes: Canon 430EX, Canon 580EX II
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Thank you for giving me my first cheerful moment today. I laughed at that one.
Website • Blog • Facebook • Twitter
Interesting question about how they got my address, however. Wow, I really don't know! I assumed it was from my website, but I see that my website only gives my phone and fax number. I do have a link to my resume on my "About Me" page, but that lists my PO Box, not my home address! This letter came to my home address, so now I am REALLY perplexed! How DID they get my home address? WTH?
I have contacted a couple of attorneys today to inquire about rates, but none has called me back.
Website • Blog • Facebook • Twitter
Nora,
It's not hard to find at all. Out of curiosity, I found what I'm guessing is your home address in 27 seconds. I won't post it to verify though.
And that's with free services - an attorney might use a commercial service which would be even more accurate.
Nikon D300, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 70-300/4.5-5.6, SB800
Haha. Thanks!
Seriously though. Wow.
Website • Blog • Facebook • Twitter
Yeah it is not hard.....I was communicating with a young lady in the Czech Republic and asked her if I had her street address correct......I simply did an internet search .....and if your phone an fax are attached that is so much easier.......
BTW she got a kick out of me finding her Dad and Moms address and phone......got called a real Dick Tracy......had to tell her I came up in a cop family (Dad was until he passed....brother still is....)
Then searched her name. Wow. All of the works in question were OFFICIALLY copyrighted with the copyright office in the last couple of weeks. They all have official copyrights starting between March 25 and up to the day before the lawyer drafted the letter. Now, I know, I know, before anyone says it, when we create works (i.e. take that pic) they are considered copyright to us, and I'm sure it applies to the creation of a piece of art as well. I just found it INTERESTING that they were all copy written officially right before this letter was drafted.
No return calls from any lawyers today. Will try again tomorrow.
Website • Blog • Facebook • Twitter
Just write a letter back stating this, contact SM for clarification that no sales have been made and say that the photographs were in no way financially damaging to the artist in question. You won't hear from them again.
Sorry this has happend to you, it's why I make it a personal rule that when I do street photography (or anywhere public) I don't photograph people's work or at markets.
And, believe me...I never will again....sigh.
Website • Blog • Facebook • Twitter
Link to my Smugmug site
Website • Blog • Facebook • Twitter
*And who knows, maybe one of the buyers saw her work on MY website and used the link I provided and bought it.
Website • Blog • Facebook • Twitter
After reading this, what is sounds like is the artist went through a lawyer to file official copywrights on her work. Part of the process with the lawyer's office was probably to "google" her name to see if anyone had violated the copywrights in any way (it's free and fast, easy money for the lawyer's office). Since you gave credit to her on your smugmug page, the keywords came up in google. The lawyer's office investigated your site, found your number and, in turn, found your address.
Moral of the story: don't give credit where credit is due
... kidding.
http://silversx80.smugmug.com/
Olympus E-M5, 12-50mm, 45mm f/1.8
Some legacy OM lenses and an OM-10
Link to my Smugmug site
I received my camera as a gift Christmas of 2008. A lower end DSLR. I had always like taking pictures (on P&S cameras), and everyone told me I had an "eye" for photography, so my husband bought me this to take me to the next level of learning.
On the advice of a family member who uses SmugMug, I decided to host pictures here. I don't believe I even initially had the "buy" button turned on at all, now that I think about it. I didn't even go "pro" with SM until about six months later.
Went to the art festival three months later and took snapshots with my new camera as we were walking around. Posted them to SM for family and friends to view. Over the course of the year, I continued to post pics I had taken.
In December of 2009 I did a TFCD model shoot with a photography club locally here. While the shoot was TFCD, the organizers told the photographers that if they wanted to sell prints to the models from their websites they could. I went ahead and set up pricing for portraits and applied it globally, never even thinking about all the pictures I had taken all through the year getting this setting applied to them. Who would have thought it would matter...most of my shots weren't exactly the type of photographs someone would buy and hang on a wall or anything. But, hey if someone liked a flower shot I took or something, great.
In January of 2010 I decided I would try my hand at some "artsy" type stuff and started an "art series" on my site. Then I set up pricing for the "nicer" stuff SmugMug offers, like wraps, giclees, etc., not even realizing that this would be applied globally. So, my thought is she is thinking I am selling "fine art prints" of those snapshots I took at the art festival! People, they really ARE snapshots. You can see the tables the items are sitting on and everything. They aren't perfectly centered, or straight, or even particularly good shots.
So, when applying this GLOBALLY on SM, be sure to check and make sure you want to do that for each gallery. That is where I screwed up. I never in my wildest dreams would think a snapshot from any of the events I have taken pictures at, or even places I had visited, would sell...and of course, none have. But, I figured the option to sell some of my natures shots would be cool. I wish I had just applied it to those galleries only, obviously.
I have, of course, turned off the "buy" button on my website for everything now. Did it at the same time I took down pics of EVERY single shot at that art festival that contained any artists work. I do not need this kind of stress. I have never sold anything anyway, so I am out nothing my doing so. If someone stumbles upon a nature pictures or something I have taken and they like it, they can contact me.
Website • Blog • Facebook • Twitter