If you haven’t yet, in the future there are two lines you will likely hear:
A) “Oh, we are so sorry, our web guy must have done that without our knowledge”
B) “Oh, we are so sorry, our graphic designer must have done that without our knowledge”
Both excuses are complete bovine fecal matter but you can more or less count on nobody taking responsibility and owing up to stealing your image/s.
The web has made theft of content very very easy and while I empathize, I cannot think of a manner in which this will be stopped. Public ‘shaming’ as you call it is a start, I’m just not sure if there’s really much more than can be done. Judgements are fairly easy to get, but even though the penalty for copyright infringement is very substantial, collecting on a judgement is nigh unto impossible in my experience and I’ve prevailed in more than one case.
In this specific situation, however, they are a company in the firearms industry, which is still a fairly small industry and this type of thing has a tendency to spread fairly quickly if given the right type of attention by honest people looking to spend their money at an honest company. I am not looking to piss on anyone specifically, but what occurred is wrong and as others have stated, it is common place enough that it needs to be addressed. The easiest way for this to be brought to the limelight is through their wallets. When companies are held accountable by their customers for their immoral and unethical actions they will have to take action.
I sympathize with the OP as gcode is in the wrong but I’d still like someone to explain how one can claim copyright infringement over what is essentially a random photo with no registered or identifiable markings that was pulled off the interwebs?
Copyright exists from the moment the image is captured until 70 years after the authors death. There’s nothing ‘random’ about the photo, the OP set up the photo and pressed the button, that’s all that’s required for copyright. No markings are required.
Right but you could pull the same photo off any random flickr account that happened to be hosting it and they could all say they were the originator and because there is no identifiable copyright markings none of their claims would any less valid than another right? How is anyone (company or otherwise) suppose to validate what is essentially random?
When the owner of the original photo comes forward then it is up to him to prove it, which I did by posting a link to a review which contains the photo almost a year before gcode used it. Then I can always provide the exif, as I stated.
I like GCode and have several of their SOC holsters.
This type of thing, however, is something that has the potential to put me off to customers. I can handle a “Hey, we’re in a pickle. We need a picture…grab that nice looking one…” mistake someone might make in a hurry once.
But to delete negative comments and not confront the issue is an entirely different matter. It’s why I will never purchase anything from Griffin ever again. When you decide to enter the realm of social media, you do so knowing you will open yourself up to the positive and negative aspects. Deleting negative comments is such a chickenshit thing to do, and knowing they do that may be enough to look for another RTI compatible holster company.
We deal with this all the time at my employer. We shoot our own photos of the products we sell and they get stolen often.
We collect the offending links and send them to our attorney. He sends a cease and desist. In the event of noncompliance, suit is filed and we win.
Much more difficult for an individual without the resources to cover attorney fees.
The good news is, there is an organization that helps artists of all kinds protect their work. Attorneys volunteer their time. I’ll see if I can find the name of the organization for you.
If anyone is displaying your work without your permission, even if they attribute, they are in violation of your rights to your artwork.
Even if Instagram’s terms of use require open license for uploaded images, if you didn’t upload and the person that did does not have permission, then the image needs to be taken down.
ETA: This is why sites like FB and Instagram put in their terms of use that you agree you have rights to use an image or video before uploading and by uploading you share the rights in whatever fashion their TOU indicate.
This is all based on my limited knowledge. I’m not am attorney and I’ve never played one.
If they were in the photo selling business I might see your point.
They saw a picture of their holster on the internet with no attribution, no copyright, nothing and they re-posted it. No big deal.
OMG, here is a picture of a car. No attribution, no copyright. If you resend it out on instagram do you think it is the same thing as claiming you designed this $2M 1 of 499 car?
Actually it is. There is a four prong legal test which much be met to exclude any fair use exceptions. One of those is that there is a loss.
I’m curious if an amateur photographer, if he doesn’t sell any work, could meet that prong of the legal challenge and claim an infringement.
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Also, I wonder if there could be any claim that the holster’s image is intellectual property of its maker, same being for the handgun.
I guess I expected a little better of the membership base here. Perhaps the next mag I see on the ground or table at a class without a name on it will be mine.
People would learn a lot if they took the time to read the user agreements they blindly accept. Reminds me of the South Park “Human Cent-iPad” episode.
