To be honest........... the picture looks nothing like your avatar if you ask me. Assuming you look like your avatar, I don't see anyone correlating that other picture as being you. By you bringing this up on an open/public forum, I think you're doing more harm than good and really bringing this un-needed attention to yourself. It helps even less that you've chosen to use your real-name as your board alias.

Not from the pic but if I showed up to visit him or was contacting him. The police still don't know the motive.

 

Sometimes our friends break the law. Doesn't mean the police are going to knock down your door. If you want to lay low and not visit him for fear the police might investigate you, it would seem that all this cease and desist stuff about the photo would cause more attention your way.

To be honest........... the picture looks nothing like your avatar if you ask me. Assuming you look like your avatar, I don't see anyone correlating that other picture as being you. By you bringing this up on an open/public forum, I think you're doing more harm than good and really bringing this un-needed attention to yourself. It helps even less that you've chosen to use your real-name as your board alias.

 

It's not Shawn. It's Shawn's friend who got arrested. I forget what it was but seem to remember it being something awful.

It all starts with having your attorney issue a cease and desist letter claiming ownership of the image. I'm going through the same thing now with a design firm in Boston and a national restaurant chain at the shore . In several past instances, the cease and desist letter is all that it took to rectify the matter.

 

Sent from my Droid Razr Maxx using Tapatalk 2

If it is advertising , yes a cease and desist should do it. If it is news or editorial (and this guy is news) and is printed in that context ..no recourse. Freedom of the press . That is why famous people get so violated. The mere fact that they are famous makes their image "newsworthy" . I have pictures I took of a few famous people at the Stone Pony and other places. I am allowed to publish them in any paper ..newspaper , music newspapers like the Aquarian. What I can't do is make it in to a poster or print and sell it to a gallery , or put it in some store's flyer , a restaurant's menu ( Look! Bruce eats here!) type thing.

 

Someone steal your work and use it for their business? If you are a member of the PPA they will litigate that for you at minimal cost.

Send them a DMCA takedown notice.

My aunts a lawyer so I'm gonna ask her to type one up.

Send them a DMCA takedown notice.

 

A DMCA takedown notice has absolutely nothing to do with newspapers , news , nothing.That is used when someone steals one of your videos or pictures and puts it on youtube or some other similar internet site without your permission. It is part of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Act and it is meant to keep OSPs from being sued for copyright infringement because someone stole someone's work and then broadcast it on FB or youtube as their own . It has zero to do with what is going on here.

If it is advertising , yes a cease and desist should do it. If it is news or editorial (and this guy is news) and is printed in that context ..no recourse. Freedom of the press . That is why famous people get so violated. The mere fact that they are famous makes their image "newsworthy" . I have pictures I took of a few famous people at the Stone Pony and other places. I am allowed to publish them in any paper ..newspaper , music newspapers like the Aquarian. What I can't do is make it in to a poster or print and sell it to a gallery , or put it in some store's flyer , a restaurant's menu ( Look! Bruce eats here!) type thing.

 

Someone steal your work and use it for their business? If you are a member of the PPA they will litigate that for you at minimal cost.

 

I am a member of NPPA, but I have a private attorney that handles such matters for me. In most cases, the letter does work, without a major fight, even with a news organization. I've used it successfully with several Philadelphia news organizations who stole several images from my Philadelpia Eagles portfolio. You took photographs at the Stone Pony. You own the rights to those photographs. Since it was a public venue, and there was no expectation of privacy on the part of the subject, no release is necessary as long as it's not for commercial use. You post it to Facebook and the Star Ledger decides to use it because they feel it's newsworthy. Without a release from you, that use is illegal. They have options to stop using it, or to negotiate with you for the continued use of the photograph.

Was this from your FB portfolio ? Or website? Curious.

 

Like I said in one of my earlier posts , photographers often watermark or put a notice up on their page that says do not copy , crop etc etc. I do. Plus I put it in the metadata . I do know some photographers ( you included now) who had it stand up in court because the watermark was removed , or the "do not copy" was ignored . It gives you some protection.

 

I also know some that lost . One in particular involved pictures of Bruce Springsteen that were copied from a FB page then appeared in the Asbury Press . The Asbury Press did not have to do anything( compensate , stop using , give credit , etc) because the photographer had posted them on a few friend's walls and the wall for the Stoned Pony and the Stone Pony sent it to the Press. Therefore he "shared" them and lost any expectation of privacy he had . He lost that one. It is relevent to Shawn's issue here because if you post a FB picture of a friend and share it with them or allow them to share it , and they post it on their site , and it gets used....well , I suppose you can still send a letter if you want to and if the paper has another picture they like they may grant your wish just so you go away. But the definitely do not have to. KWIM?

 

We're not totally comparing apples to apples here

Looking at this from an alternative viewpoint, the paper is going to get a picture of him somehow. By using your picture, they ended up with a flattering photo, where he is smiling and looks like a friendly guy. It's better than the "perp walk" or other photos they might find.

 

Although it sucks they stole your photo, maybe he should be happy they found a flattering photo?

 

 

Sometimes our friends break the law. Doesn't mean the police are going to knock down your door. If you want to lay low and not visit him for fear the police might investigate you, it would seem that all this cease and desist stuff about the photo would cause more attention your way.

 

Agreed. Posting stuff about him on a public forum seems like the opposite of what your tying to do. I'm not really sure what the problem you have with the picture, other than the fact that its your property, which I would say sending a cease and desist is your best bet. However, I highly doubt you'd win a court case, not to mention all that unwanted attention towards you.

Looking at this from an alternative viewpoint, the paper is going to get a picture of him somehow. By using your picture, they ended up with a flattering photo, where he is smiling and looks like a friendly guy. It's better than the "perp walk" or

 

If you're going for that "flattering" angle, one would think you wouldn't have a folder called "Crazy Pat" with those pictures in it.

That's been his nickname for years.

I am a member of NPPA, but I have a private attorney that handles such matters for me. In most cases, the letter does work, without a major fight, even with a news organization. I've used it successfully with several Philadelphia news organizations who stole several images from my Philadelpia Eagles portfolio. You took photographs at the Stone Pony. You own the rights to those photographs. Since it was a public venue, and there was no expectation of privacy on the part of the subject, no release is necessary as long as it's not for commercial use. You post it to Facebook and the Star Ledger decides to use it because they feel it's newsworthy. Without a release from you, that use is illegal. They have options to stop using it, or to negotiate with you for the continued use of the photograph.

 

Is that National Press Photographer's Association? I was a member about 3 decades ago, along with NJPPA.

 

As you're probably aware, I'm still waiting for answers to specific questions regarding who posted the image and who sold it or gave it away. Once it's been shared to the public, it's now fair game, even though neither the photog or the original client (Shawn) gives permission. Fair use comes into play once more.......

I gave the pic to pat and he put it on Facebook.

Yeah , in that case they definitely do not have to do anything different than what they are doing.So I would not pay a lawyer to write a letter or anything since you really don't have any legal recourse.

 

HOWEVER there are still decent people in this world and if you get the ear of a nice person there at the paper and explain that your wife is upset something from her wedding picture collection is being used in such an unpleasant story , someone may harvest a different picture of him. You never know.

Yes. Its the national Press Photographers Association. Still going strong.

 

Sent from my Droid Razr Maxx using Tapatalk 2