BM photos stolen and sold illegally on Shutterfly

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:32 pm

and if i may add an additonal sentence to Rob's thought...

why choose a legal battle over something like this when the funds and energy could be used in a more creative efficient and effective way against a large more ominous threat of your choosing?

or simply put...

pick your battles.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:58 am

Tristan wrote:> 1) Do you have proof that the people made money off of your work, meaning traceable receipts?

Not the person that stole the work, but Shutterfly charges for those prints.>

2) The fact that the artwork stolen was posted on the Internet (in a public forum).

There is a notice on the original site that the work is copyrighted, and that it cannot be used without the author's permission. The copyright notice is tattooed on each original photo.

we're not gonna spend $1000 talking to a lawyer, but maybe the BMORG will do something, since they have a copyright on all the photos taken at BM and they don't want them to be sold as "stock" images.

The site plainly states:

Copyright notice
Shutterfly is committed to protecting photographers’ copyrights. Each image submitter is required by US law to own the right to or to obtain permission to use any image before the image is uploaded or printed at Shutterfly. If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that infringes your copyrights, please contact us at the following address and provide all relevant details.

If you know for a fact that Shutterfly is making a profit off your pictures you should seek a laywer that will work probono or at least one that will listen free of charge. Threre are some good ones out there that will do it.
In San Francisco there is an organization downtown that takes cases once
the Legal assastant, ( cant remember the name of these guys. ) makes sure there may be some kind of case. I'm sure there is a place where you are that does the same type of thing.

Too bad it's so early in the morning or I would walk down there and find out what the name of the place is and get better advise that would steer you in the right direction.

I wont be able to do it anyway today because my friend is on his way into town to visit me (AGAIN....WOO HOO.) today, so I'll be doing nothing else but partying.
I'm sure you can find out something. From a laywer that wont cost you anything.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:01 am

Damn,

shoulda done a spell check.

Too early in the morn.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:03 am

DVD Burner wrote:Too bad it's so early in the morning or I would walk down there and find out what the name of the place is and get better advise that would steer you in the right direction.

excuses are like the end of your digestive tract, everybody has one.

do i have an excuse? yeah, i pick better battles, and this one isn't it.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:15 am

Simply Joel wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:Too bad it's so early in the morning or I would walk down there and find out what the name of the place is and get better advise that would steer you in the right direction.
excuses are like the end of your digestive tract, everybody has one.

do i have an excuse? yeah, i pick better battles, and this one isn't it.

Yep Joel, as usual thinking ahead is not one of your fortes.

It should be determined by a Lawyer if it's not worth the battle. Depending on how much damage and suffering the owner of the site has caused to Tristan and Tristan's reputation, the Lawyer may feel that the owner should loose the site and the domain can be sold for whatever the damages are.

You need a lawyer to determine that.

That’s all I’m saying.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:19 am

The other thing is, how much did the site or whomever make off the pics? If it's 500-5000 dollars it may not be worth it. It really all depends.
The laywer may know a company that just may want to buy the domain name for 10,000 dollars.

You never know.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:41 am

I want to rephrase:

It should be determined by Tristan and Lawyer if it's not worth the battle.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:40 am

DVD Burner wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:Too bad it's so early in the morning or I would walk down there and find out what the name of the place is and get better advise that would steer you in the right direction.
excuses are like the end of your digestive tract, everybody has one.

do i have an excuse? yeah, i pick better battles, and this one isn't it.
Yep Joel, as usual thinking ahead is not one of your fortes.

What the fuck do you think you know about me, pissboy…

DVD Burner wrote:It should be determined by a Lawyer if it's not worth the battle. Depending on how much damage and suffering the owner of the site has caused to Tristan and Tristan's reputation, the Lawyer may feel that the owner should loose the site and the domain can be sold for whatever the damages are.

You need a lawyer to determine that.

That’s all I’m saying.

I believe my point was and is… is it actually worth the effort? Aren’t there bigger issues in the world other than some photos, reposted? I believe there are, and that again, was another facet of my point.

DVD Burner wrote:The other thing is, how much did the site or whomever make off the pics? If it's 500-5000 dollars it may not be worth it. It really all depends.
The laywer may know a company that just may want to buy the domain name for 10,000 dollars.

You never know.

DVD Burner wrote:I want to rephrase:

It should be determined by Tristan and Lawyer if it's not worth the battle.

Yes, the decision has always been Tristan’s yet…

No, I disagree on princple… this is the same legal minutia that clogs the current legal system with the likes of John Kerry and John Edwards.

In my own personal life, I have taken every possible step to ensure my interaction with any authority figure is minimal and fleeting… so, jumping into court needlessly isn’t an activity I find in concert with the previously stated principle.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:48 am

John Kerry and John Edwards? Huh? what do they have to do with this.....never mind.

I'm just not in the mood to argue with you this morning Joel. My life is happy right now.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:56 am

DVD Burner wrote:John Kerry and John Edwards? Huh? what do they have to do with this.....never mind.

I'm just not in the mood to argue with you this morning Joel. My life is happy right now.

Litigation lawyers...

i am not sure what my being correct each and every post has to do with your moods, but hey... what do i know.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:03 am

Simply Joel wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:John Kerry and John Edwards? Huh? what do they have to do with this.....never mind.

I'm just not in the mood to argue with you this morning Joel. My life is happy right now.

Litigation lawyers...

i am not sure what my being correct each and every post has to do with your moods, but hey... what do i know.

If that's what makes you happy dood. All I know is that I'm gonna hang with the most intelligent people on the planet today that are into picking my mind today and are 10 times smarter than......well anyway, that make the things that most everyone on this board need to use everyday and I dont care what stupid little thing makes you or anyone here happy today.

Enjoy your self indulgence while you can.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:06 am

This thread is about Tristan.

That's all.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:06 am

once again, the pot calling the kettle black.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:08 am

Simply Joel wrote:once again, the pot calling the kettle black.

Yep, um hum, whatever.

Tristan · Post by **Tristan** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:14 pm

DVD Burner wrote:This thread is about Tristan.

That's all.

No.

This thread is about people hijacking BM photos and those photos being sold on the internet, with their copyright notices removed.

By the way, it appears that it is Shutterfly which removed the copyright notices automatically, when they crop the uploaded images to match the 4x6 aspect ratio. So this was probably not done purposely. Nonetheless, this is a problem, and ShutterFly should show the entire images, or at least offer an option to see that.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:18 pm

DVD Burner wrote:This thread is about Tristan.

That's all.

don't even start. just. don't.

this is an important thread. and it's something a fellow burner is going through. shut that bouncing mouth of yours for one instant, would you??

ahem. sorry tristan. carry on.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:37 pm

Rian Jackson wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:This thread is about Tristan.

That's all.
don't even start. just. don't.

this is an important thread. and it's something a fellow burner is going through. shut that bouncing mouth of yours for one instant, would you??

ahem. sorry tristan. carry on.

Rian, you have just disapointed me. I actually thought you wre smarter than that.

You fell for following the band wagon and read it what I've written out of context.

That's fucked.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:52 pm

Tristan wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:This thread is about Tristan.

That's all.
No.

This thread is about people hijacking BM photos and those photos being sold on the internet, with their copyright notices removed.

By the way, it appears that it is Shutterfly which removed the copyright notices automatically, when they crop the uploaded images to match the 4x6 aspect ratio. So this was probably not done purposely. Nonetheless, this is a problem, and ShutterFly should show the entire images, or at least offer an option to see that.

1) The statement "This thread is about Tristan" should have been read as This thread is about Tristan's problem. To read anything else into it is just wrong.
2) I also was nice about your problem by giving you positive support in a way that you could actually do something about it. not only that but if you really read with an open mind what I posted, I actually was agreeing with you and posted the disclaimer (which seems no one else had the sense to do in the first place. ) to back your claim of disaprovement of what the site (shutterfly.) was doing.

Look, you guys may not like me for whatever the reason but looks to me like what I said in the begining is right. SUE THE SITE.
That was being honest and to the point.
If you dont agree then just say nope I dont agree or blow it off. Why be imature about it all.
Is it really worth going through all the nastyness?

I was not nasty to any of you except for maybe Joel but that's a ritual with him.

Tristan · Post by **Tristan** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 4:07 pm

Shutterfly removed the gallery with the stolen BM photos, so this topic is closed (for now)!

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 4:08 pm

woohoo! congrats, Tristan! smooch!

there's a celebratory drink of your choice for you, from me, in the bar.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:21 am

congrats, Tristan.

was a lawyer involved? just curious.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:26 am

Right on.

Tristan · Post by **Tristan** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:02 am

Simply Joel wrote:congrats, Tristan.

was a lawyer involved? just curious.

nope, just contacting ShutterFly directly.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:04 am

Tristan wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:congrats, Tristan.

was a lawyer involved? just curious.
nope, just contacting ShutterFly directly.

outstanding!

direct participation!

BM photos stolen and sold illegally on Shutterfly

my two copper abe lincoln coins worth

Re: Second that.

Re: Second that.

Re: Second that.

the phrase "illegally" has not been proven.