Saw my piccie in a movie... without permission

wxwax

I was watching An Inconvenient Truth this evening when I saw a very familiar image.



They zoomed in a quite a bit, and made the taillights more red... but it's this pic all right.

Now I'm torn. Not sure if it's worth a big hassle to get the $150 they owe me. Or if I should spend a lot of time and effort to hold them accountable.

gus

wxwax wrote:

I was watching An Inconvenient Truth this evening when I saw a very familiar image.



They zoomed in a quite a bit, and made the taillights more red... but it's this pic all right.

Now I'm torn. Not sure if it's worth a big hassle to get the $150 they owe me. Or if I should spend a lot of time and effort to hold them accountable.

What do you think their legal people would do to you if you pirated their show & proudly put it in front of millions to see ?



Book 'em Dano

Nikolai

Sid,

wxwax wrote:

I was watching An Inconvenient Truth this evening when I saw a very familiar image.

They zoomed in a quite a bit, and made the taillights more red... but it's this pic all right.

Now I'm torn. Not sure if it's worth a big hassle to get the $150 they owe me. Or if I should spend a lot of time and effort to hold them accountable.

I'm not trying to be a Devil's advocate, but is it possible that they somehow took their own shot from the nearby spot?

I mean - it would be pretty hard to prove it to the judge, should it come to the court.

However, if you're sure it *is* your picture - I say, go and tear them apart! And I'm not talking about lousy $150... Maybe $150K

wxwax

Nikolai wrote:

I'm not trying to be a Devil's advocate, but is it possible that they somehow took their own shot from the nearby spot?

I mean - it would be pretty hard to prove it to the judge, should it come to the court.

However, if you're sure it *is* your picture - I say, go and tear them apart! And I'm not talking about $150...

I shot mine through a hole in fence on a freeway overpass. I couldn't duplicate the shot with a SLR lens, it would be too big.

And why would they go to the trouble of mimicking an Atlanta skyline shot? And it wouldn't be at all difficult to prove. Simply lay one shot over the other. They'd match perfectly. Why? Same angle and elevation.

I think you just enjoy playing devil's advocate, Nik.

Nikolai

Sid,

wxwax wrote:

I shot mine through a hole in fence on a freeway overpass. I couldn't duplicate the shot with a SLR lens, it would be too big.

And why would they go to the trouble of mimicking an Atlanta skyline shot? And it wouldn't be at all difficult to prove. Simply lay one shot over the other. They'd match perfectly. Why? Same angle and elevation.

I think you just enjoy playing devil's advocate, Nik.

Re: your last sentence: no, I'm not, just playing cautious.

In that case, I can only repeat meself and Gus: they would tear you to pieces if you rebroadcast their show w/o thier permission.
Reciprocity works: they broadcasted your image to millions. Take that $150 and multiply by the number of viewers.

Make us all proud!

W.W. Webster

wxwax wrote:

I was watching An Inconvenient Truth this evening when I saw a very familiar image. They zoomed in a quite a bit, and made the taillights more red... but it's this pic all right.

Thousands of similar shots must have been taken by thousands of photographers. Asserting your specific image was used is a big call. Could it be as familiar to countless others as it was to you?

Jeffro

wxwax wrote:

I was watching An Inconvenient Truth this evening when I saw a very familiar image.

They zoomed in a quite a bit, and made the taillights more red... but it's this pic all right.

Now I'm torn. Not sure if it's worth a big hassle to get the $150 they owe me. Or if I should spend a lot of time and effort to hold them accountable.

How did they use it? Where did they get it?

wxwax

W.W. Webster wrote:

Thousands of similar shots must have been taken by thousands of photographers. Asserting your specific image was used is a big call. Could it be as familiar to countless others as it was to you?

Ummm, look at the shot. Does it appear to be a standard shot to you? :cool

Same sky, same shine on buildings, same traffic trails, same location (not a photog friendly location).

No, thousands of similar shots have not been taken.

And no, asserting it's my image is not a big call. Why on earth would you think it is?

wxwax

Jeffro wrote:

How did they use it? Where did they get it?

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.

W.W. Webster

wxwax wrote:

And no, asserting it's my image is not a big call. Why on earth would you think it is?

I'm not asserting it isn't your image, just raising the question. It would be a very popular cityscape to take, and I don't know whether you would have had a long enough view in the movie to be absolutely sure it's yours.

If you believe your rights have been infringed, contact the producers and say so. Ask them to confirm who owns the rights and from whom they acquired a licence to use. Are you that certain?

Jeffro

wxwax wrote:

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.

WOW, no protection?! Didn't your mother teach you better than that? They'll probably argue they didn't steal it, and if the original can be taken with a click of the mouse and reposted over and over, you could face an impossible trail of who took it. They may well be able to show you they did buy it, but not from you. Big can of worms......

If you don't protect your images, be prepared for more of the same.

And I'm surprised you sell yourself so short:

wxwwax wrote:

You'll notice I don't copyright or right-click protect my images, never thought they were worth it.

wxwax

W.W. Webster wrote:

I'm not asserting it isn't your image, just raising the question. It would be a very popular cityscape to take, and I don't know whether you would have had a long enough view in the movie to be absolutely sure it's yours.

If you believe your rights have been infringed, contact the producers and say so. Ask them to confirm who owns the rights and from whom they acquired a licence to use. Are you that certain?

I ask again, why on earth wouldn't I be certain?

Is it that inconceivable to you that a stolen piccie is used in a documentary?

I confess to being surprised, and mildly amused, by those who are incredulous that An Inconvenient Truth used an image without permission.

wxwax

W.W. Webster wrote:

It would be a very popular cityscape to take, and I don't know whether you would have had a long enough view in the movie to be absolutely sure it's yours.

I invite you to find its twin.

And I have a DVR.

wxwax

Jeffro wrote:

WOW, no protection?! Didn't your mother teach you better than that? They'll probably argue they didn't steal it, and if the original can be taken with a click of the mouse and reposted over and over, you could face an impossible trail of who took it. They may well be able to show you they did buy it, but not from you. Big can of worms......

If you don't protect your images, be prepared for more of the same.

And I'm surprised you sell yourself so short:

I dont doubt it would be a pain in the ass to get reimbursed, as I said at the top of the thread. Proving ownership, however, would not be the hurdle.

Getting past the stonewalling and reaching the right person, could be incredibly time consuming.

Jeffro

wxwax wrote:

I dont doubt it would be a pain in the ass to get reimbursed, as I said at the top of the thread. Proving ownership, however, would not be the hurdle.

Getting past the stonewalling and reaching the right person, could be incredibly time consuming.

Yes it would. Now, you just made them some more money, because I'm going to have to watch it and look for your piccie. But wait, aren't I contributing to global warming just by being on the internet...much less watching that movie on my big screen?

Edit: Save us all the time, put the movie on your DVR, pause it, take a piccie of your piccie, let us see.

wxwax

Jeffro wrote:

Yes it would. Now, you just made them some more money, because I'm going to have to watch it and look for your piccie. But wait, aren't I contributing to global warming just by being on the internet...much less watching that movie on my big screen?

Plus, you'd have to watch a lot of the movie, it's very near the end.

Jeffro

Jeffro wrote:

Edit: Save us all the time, put the movie on your DVR, pause it, take a piccie of your piccie, let us see.

That's why I said that^:D

wxwax

Jeffro wrote:

That's why I said that^:D

It was on HBO, I rewound it and watched it again. But I don't have the DVD, so I can't take a piccie of the screen.

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.

Jeffro

wxwax wrote:

It was on HBO, I rewound it and watched it again. But I don't have the DVD, so I can't take a piccie of the screen.

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.

I for one don't doubt ya. I would probably have ended up watching the movie anyway, so now I have even more of a reason.

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?

DavidTO

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.

Nikolai

Sid,

wxwax wrote:

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 :-)

gus

wxwax wrote:

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.

DavidTO

Oh, and Sid, I forgot:


Congratulations.

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.

Nikolai

Sid,

DavidTO wrote:

Oh, and Sid, I forgot:
Congratulations.

Hear, hear!

wxwax

DifferentSeed wrote:

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.

wxwax

gus wrote:

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.

wxwax

DavidTO wrote:

Oh, and Sid, I forgot:


Congratulations.

Thanks!

wxwax

DifferentSeed wrote:

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.

W.W. Webster

wxwax wrote:

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.