But if you want to convince a lawyer that you can't afford to pay much for his/her services, then don't walk in and talk about the photos you took with your Canon Mk III!
ha! great point... we were beating up some sprinkler repair people who wanted like $2500 to replace all the heads on our property (like 90 of them, on 1 acre)... a 2-full day job... we got them down to $1500 then got talking about our business when he asked how much we charged for wedding photography and of course we charge a lot more than $1500 for a 6 hour event... he just slyly looked at me and said, "and you are beating me up about price on our services?" Yeah, kinda ruined my negotiation ability
Las Vegas Wedding, Family, and Special Event Photographers.
Canon 7d
2 Canon 40d
70-200 f2.8L IS, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, 28mm f1.8, Tamron 17-55 f2.8, ProOptic 8mm Fisheye
And a bunch of other stuff
That $100 won't go far at all in the legal system, I'm afraid. But if you want to convince a lawyer that you can't afford to pay much for his/her services, then don't walk in and talk about the photos you took with your Canon Mk III!
Yes and no... I know a number of professional photographers who have very nice gear and yet still don't have any money. However, in the case of an amateur I'll agree with you.
In the letter of the law there isn't any difference between a shot taken with a $30,000 medium format system and a cell phone. However, clearly people are more threatened by the expensive camera. I'll bet that the artist who initially started this isn't sending threaning letters to everyone who takes snapshots with an iPhone and posts them on Flickr despite the fact that the legal issue is the same.
Related idea
For many years, I have told people on this board that you if are selling photography of any kind, you must be a real business and act like one with regard to having a set of books, an attorney, an accountant and insurance via PPA or one of the other package policies and understand what you can and can't do as a professional (defined as any one who charges for any kind of photographic prints or services with regard to paying for your hobby all the way to making some kind of living or dent in the finances).
If the OP had done a basic business with insurance and had the legalities in place - she'd have had the resources to deal with this for less than $1000 a year and she'd have the legal team available to counter this without any financial investment and reduced stress. This is the very best thing you could do! There could be a lot more at stake than a few hundred/thousand dollars if the OP has any personal assets.
Good comments, Kathy. The Internet makes it so easy to offer, and sometimes sell, images . . . but it also creates problems like the one that Nora has encountered. Microstock sites are a good example too.
Liquid - I agree with you about high-dollar gear not equating to dollars in one's pocket--I was half kidding when I made the MkIII comment . . . but only half. As for the difference in how the photo was captured, you are absolutely correct--there is no difference in the end result. A copyright infringement could easily exist with a shot taken from a cell phone.
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you." (Job 12:7)
there is so much information regarding copyright in the "Photographer's Resources" sticky thread at the top of the MYOB Forum and so many discussions on this subject I'm amazed so many are still misinformed on the subject, particularly the definition of "commercial use"
I dunno. I've read that stuff over and over again and keep coming to the same conclusion: its all too subjective. Especially fair use.
I dunno. I've read that stuff over and over again and keep coming to the same conclusion: its all too subjective. Especially fair use.
Same here. I have read more on copyright in the last two weeks than I ever have in my whole life, needless to say. I have read case law and suits where you would think it would go one way and it goes the other, and vice versa. It almost seems like "luck of the draw" when it comes to this stuff.
Hey guys! I assure you I haven't forgotten about you at all! I was kind of waiting a bit to see if anything more happens.
While I didn't seek "paid" advice, I did speak to two attorneys, informally. One was an old friend from high school and another was an old family friend from my youth (he was one of my dad's best friends when he was alive and a police officer...I didn't even realize he still practiced law, or was even alive for that matter). I spoke with him at length, and we got caught up on personal info as well. The last time he saw me I was like 12! He didn't know my dad had passed either.
Although neither practices in the field of copyright law, which I have come to find out is pretty specialized, both were helpful in giving me the names of some others that could help. After speaking with them, giving them the background on what was going on, and reading my final letter (written by myself) for a response, neither gave me the indication that I was "hurting" myself by sending the response personally. As a matter of fact, my dad's friend though perhaps I was getting the point across that I wasn't worth "going after" for money by the fact that I didn't have an attorney write it! In any event, he gave me the name of someone to contact should something come of this.
I went ahead and sent my personal response via certified mail. OK, I hear the collective gasps of "what did she do!" going on...! My feeling is, if they wish to pursue this, then I will get a qualified attorney, but I wasn't ready to throw down the $250 to $500 I was quoted from several attorney's (whom I didn't know), who did finally get back to me with an offer to write a letter!
It has been almost a month, and no response back. That is not to say that there won't be one, but I am hoping this lawyer gets the gist of the fact that I am not worth the time and money to invest in this foolishness. Given the quality of the pics (poor) and the context in which they were taken, I question that they have a copyright claim, but the laws seem so vague in the areas of copyright law, who knows. Even if they were able to win a claim, I believe they would have to prove damages, of which I can't see any, given the fact that I never made money or sold a print of the pics I took at that art festival, and the artist has sold all of her sculptures for her asking price. I seriously doubt that I diminished her business in ANY WAY! But again...vague laws very open for interpretation, from what I can see.
It looks like copyright cases are filed in federal court, as an intellectual property right matter, rather than county courts, and the filing fee is $350, plus lawyers fees, etc., which aren't reimbursed unless a court says so. It seems like a lot of money for no guarantee of a win or windfall of any sort.
I have also looked at the record of the lawyer in question. The internet is such a wealth of information, as are public records! From what I can tell, this lawyer has not actually "gone to court" since 2008, and there was only one case that year, which never saw fruition. It was dropped mid-case, though I can't tell why from online records (I could pay to request all records, but why bother). I am guessing that they are more of an "arbitrator" who hopes to come to some settlement BEFORE the issue is taken to court. I have heard there are lawyers who never see the inside of a court room, perhaps that is the case with this firm, who specializes in this type of law.
I have also been following cases filed across the country in the intellectual property rights arena. It seems that most cases are filed by very large corporations (i.e. Microsoft, Apple, Louis Vitton, Coach, etc) for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and patent infringement. There seem to be very few that have been filed for "little guy" vs "little guy" suits, although I have run across a handful of them.
I have spent a LOT of time reading about copyright laws, photographers rights, etc. in the interim. I STRONGLY suggest anyone who is publically displaying photographs, either in a gallery locally or online, or selling their work, really get to know the laws in this area! I am still reading up on them.
It looks like copyright cases are filed in federal court, as an intellectual property right matter, rather than county courts, and the filing fee is $350, plus lawyers fees, etc., which aren't reimbursed unless a court says so. It seems like a lot of money for no guarantee of a win or windfall of any sort.
When I looked at copyright law, I concluded that this was the heart of the matter. I decided that, in the case of protecting my own work, it maks no sense to go to court unless the case is very clear and unambiguous because the risk is way too high for the potential reward. As far as I can tell the law only really works in extreme cases; in the gray areas you are on your own unless you have very deep pockets. No one wants to be in the position of footing the bills to set legal precedent on Fair Use which is why the interpretation of the law is so unclear.
I don't think you "hurt" yourself by writing the letter. I will be surprised if you get any answer, but please let me know if you do. I will be very curious what is said.
As for lawyers not seeing the inside of a courtroom, that is more the norm than the exception. About 95% of civil cases in the US are settled out of court. I don't know if IP cases hold to the same trend, but you highlighted one of the key reasons so many cases are settled: it isn't worth the cost, time, or effort in the majority of cases for either party to pursue the case to court. A lot of cases are resolved through arbitration and mediation also, which allows an outside person to view the merits on both sides and come up with a solution.
A lot of lawyers don't want anything to do with trying cases in court . . . but I wasn't one of those. I LOVED it!
Keep me posted!
Lauren
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you." (Job 12:7)
I'm guessing still no news? I wonder how differently it would have played out if you had courted her ego and told her how great her work was, took great shots, gave her free copies and told HER that she could use YOUR work as a marketing tool.
Nope nothing! It has been almost three months (next week) since my certified letter was sent. And, I have yet to hear a word back from anyone regarding this matter. So, does it look like I am in the clear? I can tell you, it was a real wake up call for me on photographer's rights, photography in public venues, copyright laws, etc. I am vigilant now with what I shoot and/or offer for sale.
The only things currently offered for sale by me are portrait work for my clients to buy for their sessions. I finally had done a couple of sessions for people other than TFCD shoots for models, although they are friends and family so no session fees were involved.
I may sell some art prints of landscapes, flowers, etc. at a later date, but you better be sure the pictures will fall within any copyright laws and not be able to be tied to any particular "location" or "event" that may cause issues in the future. This $#%^ scared me!
So what do y'all think...three months out am I in "the clear" and likely to not hear another word?
Nope nothing! It has been almost three months (next week) since my certified letter was sent. And, I have yet to hear a word back from anyone regarding this matter. So, does it look like I am in the clear? ... So what do y'all think...three months out am I in "the clear" and likely to not hear another word?
Unfortunately it will be several years before you know if you are truly "in the clear", as you say. The attorneys for the artist threatening you are either busy with "bigger fish" right now or they independently decided that the case against you has little to be gained in the pursuit of litigation. (Either "no merit" to the case or "no gain" from the case.)
You have nothing to gain for yourself in continuing to worry about the case. Go on with your life as though this hasn't happened. I do hope that you obtained the proof that you made no revenue from sales of the images of the artists works. I think this should be easy to ascertain from the lack of "any" sales in the period, but do get something that you can display if needed.
There will be an opportunity for you to retain counsel if, and/or when, the need arises. That will occur if you are actually served with notice to appear in court. Until that time, worry will get you nothing at all.
The attorneys for the artist threatening you are either busy with "bigger fish" right now or they independently decided that the case against you has little to be gained in the pursuit of litigation. (Either "no merit" to the case or "no gain" from the case.)
Yeah, I would say those crappy photos and me are pretty little fish in the grand scheme of things. They were promptly removed, none were sold, not much else I could have done about it.
You have nothing to gain for yourself in continuing to worry about the case. Go on with your life as though this hasn't happened.
I'm not any longer. Just responded because someone asked.
I do hope that you obtained the proof that you made no revenue from sales of the images of the artists works. I think this should be easy to ascertain from the lack of "any" sales in the period, but do get something that you can display if needed.
Absolutely! Was able to print my sales record from the backend of SmugMug which showed no activity at all. And copies of those sales (or rather "non-sales") records were sent to the attorney with my response as well. I have kept copies of all correspondence, etc. too.
I'm really not going to stress out about it anymore. Someone would have to be pretty desperate to pursue this. I personally would have never even bothered with an attorney. I would have just called the infringer (or emailed) and asked them to remove my stuff. Oh well, to each his own. Seems like the artist wasted a lot of money to me.
I mean if the photos were actually good and being displayed as a piece of art for sale by me (as if I was taking credit, ect.), it would be one thing, but snapshots from an art show display booth, put in an album of what is obviously street shots of the event? (rolling eyes) I guess the artist had money to burn on a lawyer.
Nora - Ziggy is right on. There is no 100% guarantee that you are "clear" until the statute of limitations expires (3 years for civil copyright infringement claims), but I think you should be confident that nothing further will happen in this case. You've taken all the right steps and you are right to not let it stress you anymore. Just save your "proof" where you can get it if need be, and go on with your photography work. Don't let this incident deter you from shooting events if you enjoy that. Just be aware and take steps to protect yourself with model or property releases if appropriate to the event.
Cheers,
Lauren
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you." (Job 12:7)
I mean if the photos were actually good and being displayed as a piece of art for sale by me (as if I was taking credit, ect.), it would be one thing, but snapshots from an art show display booth, put in an album of what is obviously street shots of the event? (rolling eyes) I guess the artist had money to burn on a lawyer.
No foollin!
This entire caper has only reinforced many of my beliefs.
Thanks for coming back into the thread and updating.
If it is any comfort, my work/worry/liability as a Nurse goes on for seven years. I stopped working as a Nurse this Past February, which means I am liable to what?? Feb 2017? Nice!
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.
Of all the explanations that I've heard here, this is the one that gets my vote. You took her work...put it on your site for sale...regardless of intent. There in lies the rub. People don't like others taking their work and profitting from it. She most likely views you in the same light as you are viewing her...thief...trying to steel her work and sell it on the internet on your website.
I reiterate what others have said...do not contact either the representing attorney or the plaintiff yourself...let your attorney contact them. You may make damaging comments that you aren't aware of. Second, since you have discovered that the law firm is real. Then it is real...this is no joke. They can and will most likely file a suit against you and address the issue in court if you do not take action. You will probably find that they have snapshots of your website showing the "buy it now button" hovering above your pictures of her art, and therefore intent. They can easily file a law suit for little or nothing...and compel you to show up in court with evidence contrary to the implied infraction. It happens everyday...frivilous or not. They have every right to. And, a catch 22 to the situation is that if you don't contact them...then, if this does go to court...the judge will most likely agree with their action to compel you into court, since you chose not to respond.
Sorry that this had to happen to you...but, refrain from treating this like it's a joke...or some scam to rid you of your money, as some have suggested. Seek legal adivce...stop talking about it here on this website...this is a public forum. I have Googled topics of interest...topics that I commented on here in this forum and found links to my comments here on DigitalGrin pop up at the top of the search list on Google. Yep, I was surprised.
No one, but an attorney will be able to give you legal adivice...and direct your actions in this matter.
Good luck.
Remember, no one may want you to take pictures, but they all want to see them. Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
I wonder if this event is local newspaper worthy. It could give the artist a black eye in the community and make them think twice about this. Perhaps thats their real source of income, go to an art fair, find their pictures on the internet and threaten a lawsuit if they dont pay.
Dear printergirl,
sympathies for the flap. I know how scary it can be. Most of us hope to go through life without ever dealing with the law but that is wishful thinking - especially when you dabble in business.
By now you are a lot wiser about copy-right and hopefully know that the laws are there in essence to stop people copying the original work of others. How this works out in court is a grey zone, especially in this digital age. I see cases of people trying to claim copyright on their own faces, building owners trying to claim copyright on the buildings they own, etc.
Unfortunately the law is on the side of those with deep pockets; only they can afford to front the legal costs. Good legal advice is hard to get - copyright is a specialist subject - and you do not want to end up being a test case.
With my limited knowledge, I do not actually think it matters whether you offered the pics for sale or free for download. The artist would however need to prove that her interests were damaged which seems difficult in your case. You did the right thing to take the pics down and wisely, although by doing so you indicated that you might have been wrong to have published in the first place. Always talk to a proper lawyer before doing anything - you never know, the plaintiff may have a case in law. When I look at the web today, which I do several hours a day, I notice that images are disappearing all over the place. Ambulance chasing copyright lawyers may become common. Whether this is right or not will no doubt be decided by the Supreme Court in ten years time and unless you like to go down in history, be careful. Meanwhile your best defense is poverty and silence.
Should you decide to have a proper photography business I would strongly suggest establishing some kind of limited liability company to protect your private assets should the s... really hit the fan. And do what I do, set up a reserve in the company to pay for the occasional lawyer.
PS. By the way, do not start a pissing contest in the local press. You might make things a lot worse because then the plaintiff would have something to complain about.
Comments
ha! great point... we were beating up some sprinkler repair people who wanted like $2500 to replace all the heads on our property (like 90 of them, on 1 acre)... a 2-full day job... we got them down to $1500 then got talking about our business when he asked how much we charged for wedding photography and of course we charge a lot more than $1500 for a 6 hour event... he just slyly looked at me and said, "and you are beating me up about price on our services?" Yeah, kinda ruined my negotiation ability
Canon 7d
2 Canon 40d
70-200 f2.8L IS, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, 28mm f1.8, Tamron 17-55 f2.8, ProOptic 8mm Fisheye
And a bunch of other stuff
Yes and no... I know a number of professional photographers who have very nice gear and yet still don't have any money. However, in the case of an amateur I'll agree with you.
In the letter of the law there isn't any difference between a shot taken with a $30,000 medium format system and a cell phone. However, clearly people are more threatened by the expensive camera. I'll bet that the artist who initially started this isn't sending threaning letters to everyone who takes snapshots with an iPhone and posts them on Flickr despite the fact that the legal issue is the same.
For many years, I have told people on this board that you if are selling photography of any kind, you must be a real business and act like one with regard to having a set of books, an attorney, an accountant and insurance via PPA or one of the other package policies and understand what you can and can't do as a professional (defined as any one who charges for any kind of photographic prints or services with regard to paying for your hobby all the way to making some kind of living or dent in the finances).
If the OP had done a basic business with insurance and had the legalities in place - she'd have had the resources to deal with this for less than $1000 a year and she'd have the legal team available to counter this without any financial investment and reduced stress. This is the very best thing you could do! There could be a lot more at stake than a few hundred/thousand dollars if the OP has any personal assets.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
Liquid - I agree with you about high-dollar gear not equating to dollars in one's pocket--I was half kidding when I made the MkIII comment . . . but only half. As for the difference in how the photo was captured, you are absolutely correct--there is no difference in the end result. A copyright infringement could easily exist with a shot taken from a cell phone.
Lauren Blackwell
www.redleashphoto.com
I dunno. I've read that stuff over and over again and keep coming to the same conclusion: its all too subjective. Especially fair use.
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
Same here.
Website • Blog • Facebook • Twitter
Gear: Canon 7D
Canon 24-105 f/4 L
Canon 28mm f/1.8
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
While I didn't seek "paid" advice, I did speak to two attorneys, informally. One was an old friend from high school and another was an old family friend from my youth (he was one of my dad's best friends when he was alive and a police officer...I didn't even realize he still practiced law, or was even alive for that matter). I spoke with him at length, and we got caught up on personal info as well. The last time he saw me I was like 12! He didn't know my dad had passed either.
Although neither practices in the field of copyright law, which I have come to find out is pretty specialized, both were helpful in giving me the names of some others that could help. After speaking with them, giving them the background on what was going on, and reading my final letter (written by myself) for a response, neither gave me the indication that I was "hurting" myself by sending the response personally. As a matter of fact, my dad's friend though perhaps I was getting the point across that I wasn't worth "going after" for money by the fact that I didn't have an attorney write it! In any event, he gave me the name of someone to contact should something come of this.
I went ahead and sent my personal response via certified mail. OK, I hear the collective gasps of "what did she do!" going on...
It has been almost a month, and no response back. That is not to say that there won't be one, but I am hoping this lawyer gets the gist of the fact that I am not worth the time and money to invest in this foolishness. Given the quality of the pics (poor) and the context in which they were taken, I question that they have a copyright claim, but the laws seem so vague in the areas of copyright law, who knows. Even if they were able to win a claim, I believe they would have to prove damages, of which I can't see any, given the fact that I never made money or sold a print of the pics I took at that art festival, and the artist has sold all of her sculptures for her asking price. I seriously doubt that I diminished her business in ANY WAY! But again...vague laws very open for interpretation, from what I can see.
It looks like copyright cases are filed in federal court, as an intellectual property right matter, rather than county courts, and the filing fee is $350, plus lawyers fees, etc., which aren't reimbursed unless a court says so. It seems like a lot of money for no guarantee of a win or windfall of any sort.
I have also looked at the record of the lawyer in question. The internet is such a wealth of information, as are public records! From what I can tell, this lawyer has not actually "gone to court" since 2008, and there was only one case that year, which never saw fruition. It was dropped mid-case, though I can't tell why from online records (I could pay to request all records, but why bother). I am guessing that they are more of an "arbitrator" who hopes to come to some settlement BEFORE the issue is taken to court. I have heard there are lawyers who never see the inside of a court room, perhaps that is the case with this firm, who specializes in this type of law.
I have also been following cases filed across the country in the intellectual property rights arena. It seems that most cases are filed by very large corporations (i.e. Microsoft, Apple, Louis Vitton, Coach, etc) for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and patent infringement. There seem to be very few that have been filed for "little guy" vs "little guy" suits, although I have run across a handful of them.
I have spent a LOT of time reading about copyright laws, photographers rights, etc. in the interim. I STRONGLY suggest anyone who is publically displaying photographs, either in a gallery locally or online, or selling their work, really get to know the laws in this area! I am still reading up on them.
Website • Blog • Facebook • Twitter
When I looked at copyright law, I concluded that this was the heart of the matter. I decided that, in the case of protecting my own work, it maks no sense to go to court unless the case is very clear and unambiguous because the risk is way too high for the potential reward. As far as I can tell the law only really works in extreme cases; in the gray areas you are on your own unless you have very deep pockets. No one wants to be in the position of footing the bills to set legal precedent on Fair Use which is why the interpretation of the law is so unclear.
I don't think you "hurt" yourself by writing the letter. I will be surprised if you get any answer, but please let me know if you do. I will be very curious what is said.
As for lawyers not seeing the inside of a courtroom, that is more the norm than the exception. About 95% of civil cases in the US are settled out of court. I don't know if IP cases hold to the same trend, but you highlighted one of the key reasons so many cases are settled: it isn't worth the cost, time, or effort in the majority of cases for either party to pursue the case to court. A lot of cases are resolved through arbitration and mediation also, which allows an outside person to view the merits on both sides and come up with a solution.
A lot of lawyers don't want anything to do with trying cases in court . . . but I wasn't one of those. I LOVED it!
Keep me posted!
Lauren
Lauren Blackwell
www.redleashphoto.com
www.amomentisforever.com
The only things currently offered for sale by me are portrait work for my clients to buy for their sessions. I finally had done a couple of sessions for people other than TFCD shoots for models, although they are friends and family so no session fees were involved.
I may sell some art prints of landscapes, flowers, etc. at a later date, but you better be sure the pictures will fall within any copyright laws and not be able to be tied to any particular "location" or "event" that may cause issues in the future. This $#%^ scared me!
So what do y'all think...three months out am I in "the clear" and likely to not hear another word?
Website • Blog • Facebook • Twitter
Unfortunately it will be several years before you know if you are truly "in the clear", as you say. The attorneys for the artist threatening you are either busy with "bigger fish" right now or they independently decided that the case against you has little to be gained in the pursuit of litigation. (Either "no merit" to the case or "no gain" from the case.)
You have nothing to gain for yourself in continuing to worry about the case. Go on with your life as though this hasn't happened. I do hope that you obtained the proof that you made no revenue from sales of the images of the artists works. I think this should be easy to ascertain from the lack of "any" sales in the period, but do get something that you can display if needed.
There will be an opportunity for you to retain counsel if, and/or when, the need arises. That will occur if you are actually served with notice to appear in court. Until that time, worry will get you nothing at all.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Yeah, I would say those crappy photos and me are pretty little fish in the grand scheme of things. They were promptly removed, none were sold, not much else I could have done about it.
I'm not any longer. Just responded because someone asked.
Absolutely! Was able to print my sales record from the backend of SmugMug which showed no activity at all. And copies of those sales (or rather "non-sales") records were sent to the attorney with my response as well. I have kept copies of all correspondence, etc. too.
I'm really not going to stress out about it anymore. Someone would have to be pretty desperate to pursue this. I personally would have never even bothered with an attorney. I would have just called the infringer (or emailed) and asked them to remove my stuff. Oh well, to each his own. Seems like the artist wasted a lot of money to me.
I mean if the photos were actually good and being displayed as a piece of art for sale by me (as if I was taking credit, ect.), it would be one thing, but snapshots from an art show display booth, put in an album of what is obviously street shots of the event? (rolling eyes) I guess the artist had money to burn on a lawyer.
Website • Blog • Facebook • Twitter
Cheers,
Lauren
Lauren Blackwell
www.redleashphoto.com
This entire caper has only reinforced many of my beliefs.
Thanks for coming back into the thread and updating.
If it is any comfort, my work/worry/liability as a Nurse goes on for seven years. I stopped working as a Nurse this Past February, which means I am liable to what?? Feb 2017? Nice!
I reiterate what others have said...do not contact either the representing attorney or the plaintiff yourself...let your attorney contact them. You may make damaging comments that you aren't aware of. Second, since you have discovered that the law firm is real. Then it is real...this is no joke. They can and will most likely file a suit against you and address the issue in court if you do not take action. You will probably find that they have snapshots of your website showing the "buy it now button" hovering above your pictures of her art, and therefore intent. They can easily file a law suit for little or nothing...and compel you to show up in court with evidence contrary to the implied infraction. It happens everyday...frivilous or not. They have every right to. And, a catch 22 to the situation is that if you don't contact them...then, if this does go to court...the judge will most likely agree with their action to compel you into court, since you chose not to respond.
Sorry that this had to happen to you...but, refrain from treating this like it's a joke...or some scam to rid you of your money, as some have suggested. Seek legal adivce...stop talking about it here on this website...this is a public forum. I have Googled topics of interest...topics that I commented on here in this forum and found links to my comments here on DigitalGrin pop up at the top of the search list on Google. Yep, I was surprised.
No one, but an attorney will be able to give you legal adivice...and direct your actions in this matter.
Good luck.
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed
sympathies for the flap. I know how scary it can be. Most of us hope to go through life without ever dealing with the law but that is wishful thinking - especially when you dabble in business.
By now you are a lot wiser about copy-right and hopefully know that the laws are there in essence to stop people copying the original work of others. How this works out in court is a grey zone, especially in this digital age. I see cases of people trying to claim copyright on their own faces, building owners trying to claim copyright on the buildings they own, etc.
Unfortunately the law is on the side of those with deep pockets; only they can afford to front the legal costs. Good legal advice is hard to get - copyright is a specialist subject - and you do not want to end up being a test case.
With my limited knowledge, I do not actually think it matters whether you offered the pics for sale or free for download. The artist would however need to prove that her interests were damaged which seems difficult in your case. You did the right thing to take the pics down and wisely, although by doing so you indicated that you might have been wrong to have published in the first place. Always talk to a proper lawyer before doing anything - you never know, the plaintiff may have a case in law. When I look at the web today, which I do several hours a day, I notice that images are disappearing all over the place. Ambulance chasing copyright lawyers may become common. Whether this is right or not will no doubt be decided by the Supreme Court in ten years time and unless you like to go down in history, be careful. Meanwhile your best defense is poverty and silence.
Should you decide to have a proper photography business I would strongly suggest establishing some kind of limited liability company to protect your private assets should the s... really hit the fan. And do what I do, set up a reserve in the company to pay for the occasional lawyer.
PS. By the way, do not start a pissing contest in the local press. You might make things a lot worse because then the plaintiff would have something to complain about.