UN steals my images to promote gun control in Sri Lanka!
- Thread starter Oleg Volk
- Start date
- Status
seeker_two
Member
Time to send Oleg lawyers, guns & money..... 
As someone who enjoys and benefits from your work (in promoting RKBA), could we make it a class-action suit against the UN?....
As someone who enjoys and benefits from your work (in promoting RKBA), could we make it a class-action suit against the UN?....
Sheldon J
Member
They've all said it
Now sue the pants off those coppy right thief's
see if you can get possession of the UN building in NY then we can turn it into a gun musieum
Now sue the pants off those coppy right thief's
see if you can get possession of the UN building in NY then we can turn it into a gun musieumP95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Sheldon - I made a start on that a while back - ''straightening out'' that absurd sculpture that resides outside!!!
It's a start
Crosshair
Member
I thought that sculpture was there to show how effective the UN was at protecting the people of the world?
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Are you forgetting the actual that is there right now??? I just ''corrected'' that one!
I just ''corrected'' that one!
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
My intellectual property lawyer wasn't sure I could collect anythng even if I won. However, I am quite open to getting a second opinion on that issue.
Lionhill
Member
Hi Oleg
It depends on a couple of things - where the ad was created and where it was used. Regardless of the "value" of the use, had they approached a stock agency, they would have been charged a substantial usage rate. Somewhere in the $3k to $10K depending on the print run, if it was used online, or if it is used in an outdoor display ad.
Usually in the States, retroactive licensing is widely upheld as 4 to 5 times what you would have licensed the image for (in an acceptable purpose) in the same type of ad.
I've had a lawyer/producer shmuck use a few images of mine without permission, lets just say I made him bleed, and I bought a lot of toys with the settlement.
You need a Lawyer that specializes in Intellectual Equity. You have evidence from your server logs on your site, find out who was on the website, connect the dots, and cha ching. It would be really funny to watch a bunch of gun grabbers buy you a boat load of new guns!
Edit: I wanted to add that since IANSA has a US office, and this was used on the internet, you may be able to go after their office in the States. Regardless of the laws of the country of origin, it was shown on US computers, over the net, and originated from a server undoubtedly based in the states. Go git em.
LH
It depends on a couple of things - where the ad was created and where it was used. Regardless of the "value" of the use, had they approached a stock agency, they would have been charged a substantial usage rate. Somewhere in the $3k to $10K depending on the print run, if it was used online, or if it is used in an outdoor display ad.
Usually in the States, retroactive licensing is widely upheld as 4 to 5 times what you would have licensed the image for (in an acceptable purpose) in the same type of ad.
I've had a lawyer/producer shmuck use a few images of mine without permission, lets just say I made him bleed, and I bought a lot of toys with the settlement.
You need a Lawyer that specializes in Intellectual Equity. You have evidence from your server logs on your site, find out who was on the website, connect the dots, and cha ching. It would be really funny to watch a bunch of gun grabbers buy you a boat load of new guns!
Edit: I wanted to add that since IANSA has a US office, and this was used on the internet, you may be able to go after their office in the States. Regardless of the laws of the country of origin, it was shown on US computers, over the net, and originated from a server undoubtedly based in the states. Go git em.
LH
Last edited:
Father Knows Best
Member
TIZReporter said:
Um, the term is "copyright", not "copywrite", as in, the "right" to make "copies" of an original work. Therefore, the adjective form is "copyrighted", not "copy-written."
And as others have already pointed out, all original images are "copyrighted" from the moment of their creation under U.S. law. Unlike patents, copyright arises automatically. You don't have to take any affirmative action to establish or create a copyright in something you create. It is subject to copyright protection and belongs to you unless and until you take express action to place it in the public domain.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
FNB is correct. Thanks for pointing that out. I have been holding my tongue in the revival of this thread.
Folks, there is a "fair use" exception in the copyright statute. When someone uses a photo, for example, especially if to make a political statement, another party may also use that image, regardless of who owns the copyright, to make a counterstatement, particularly if it is a "comment" on the message intended in the photo. There are limits to fair use, but it is a statutory exception that does not require any kind of 1st Amendment argument for support.
This may not seem like "fair" use, but ...
Folks, there is a "fair use" exception in the copyright statute. When someone uses a photo, for example, especially if to make a political statement, another party may also use that image, regardless of who owns the copyright, to make a counterstatement, particularly if it is a "comment" on the message intended in the photo. There are limits to fair use, but it is a statutory exception that does not require any kind of 1st Amendment argument for support.
This may not seem like "fair" use, but ...
Zundfolge
Member
True, but when the owner of the materials expressly sets terms of use and you violate them you can't claim "fair use".
From http://www.a-human-right.com/faq.html
(emphasis added)
DigitalWarrior
Member
As far as proving damages
I swear that I was going to hire Oleg for a half-million dollar ad campaign, but now that I see the poor qaulity of his work and his total lack of ethics, I will not hire him.
Oleg, you just lost $500,000.
I wonder if someone could really do something like that to support the claim of damages?
I swear that I was going to hire Oleg for a half-million dollar ad campaign, but now that I see the poor qaulity of his work and his total lack of ethics, I will not hire him.
Oleg, you just lost $500,000.
I wonder if someone could really do something like that to support the claim of damages?NineseveN
member
Someone could, but I doubt Oleg would.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
I afraid you can. Statutory fair use is not dependent on permission from or desire of the author. To do so would eliminate the entire concept of fair use. When it applies, it is virtually always in opposition to the author's desires. Fair use is not an "I thought it was OK" defense.
You have to start from the concept that copying is allowed, except for limited exceptions (patent , trademark, copyright, trade secrets) that will be enforced by the courts. Copyright is a Constitutionally prescribed exception to open copying. Fair use is a limitation on that exception.
It burns me up
what the evil people at VPC, IANSA, Brady Bunch and others do. But despite being Oleg's personal "Lawyer of Mass Destruction," there is only so much I can do (within the law).Fosbery
Member
Might I point out that this poster will have been commissioned by the UN, but I am fairly sure the UN themselves won't have made it. I can't really see Koffee Annan sitting down with Photoshop and making advertisments They will have contracted a graphic design studio, given them a brief e.g. 'make an anti-gun poster for us', and let them get on with the job. This firm will be the ones who stole the image, not the UN itself.
They will have contracted a graphic design studio, given them a brief e.g. 'make an anti-gun poster for us', and let them get on with the job. This firm will be the ones who stole the image, not the UN itself.Sheldon J
Member
outstanding Idea
try a mior change, reverse the pictures and see what happens.
try a mior change, reverse the pictures and see what happens.
secondamender
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2006
- Messages
- 8
Oleg,
The question is, did you register your rights in the work within 3 months of publication?
If so, you might be entitled to up to $150,000 per infringement, plus attorney fees, in addition to injunctive relief.
If not, you can still get injunctive relief and actual damages. Which are likely to be small and not worth the effort.
You should definitely incorporate registration into your workflow. Some photographers keep an open CD-R where they dump copies of all their stuff. When it is full, or full enough, off it goes to the Copyright Office. You can register multiple works using one form and one fee.
It takes minutes to fill out a form VA, and a mere $45, to register your material. But if you don't do it in time, there is very little that can be done for you if the thieves don't make large amounts of money with it.
If you have not done so already, you should immediately register *all* of your work. If this particular image was timley registered, then you've got a good case.
The question is, did you register your rights in the work within 3 months of publication?
If so, you might be entitled to up to $150,000 per infringement, plus attorney fees, in addition to injunctive relief.
If not, you can still get injunctive relief and actual damages. Which are likely to be small and not worth the effort.
You should definitely incorporate registration into your workflow. Some photographers keep an open CD-R where they dump copies of all their stuff. When it is full, or full enough, off it goes to the Copyright Office. You can register multiple works using one form and one fee.
It takes minutes to fill out a form VA, and a mere $45, to register your material. But if you don't do it in time, there is very little that can be done for you if the thieves don't make large amounts of money with it.
If you have not done so already, you should immediately register *all* of your work. If this particular image was timley registered, then you've got a good case.
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
That particular image is a tiny JPEG from my web site interface which they pressed into print use (badly, I might add). It would have never occured to me to register it, except as a part of the whole...
Something to consider for the future.
Something to consider for the future.
RaetherEnt
Member
Hmmmm....Maybe some individual should start stealing their images and using them to promote the downfall, uselessness, and corruption in the U.N.
Just a thought.
:banghead:
Just a thought.
:banghead:
G36-UK
Member
Why not at least complain to them?
I bet they'd have to answer if they got complaints from dozens of us.
I bet they'd have to answer if they got complaints from dozens of us.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Anti gun groups are not very creative, so there is rarely any artwork to make use of.
secondamender, what you describe is not sound legal advice. When you register a copyright for a collection of works, the registration is for the "collection." Infringement is compared to the registered work and part of the test for both infringement and damages is what portion of the work was used. To get statutory damages, they need to have appropriated the entire work, or at least substantially all of it.
Still, the fair use exception applies for most "political statement" uses. Commercial uses of Oleg's works (such as by magazines) have been vindicated.
cuchulainn
Member
OK, I mentioned this last year too, when the issue first came up. I don't like the UN much, but it's not the UN that stole the image -- it was IANSA. Some posters here seem to be confusing that fact.
IANSA certainly is in cahoots with the antis at the UN, but it's no more part of the UN than is the NRA -- both are UN NGOs (non government organizations) on the issue of gun control, but they are not actually part of the UN.
IANSA certainly is in cahoots with the antis at the UN, but it's no more part of the UN than is the NRA -- both are UN NGOs (non government organizations) on the issue of gun control, but they are not actually part of the UN.
secondamender
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2006
- Messages
- 8
Mr. Bowman,
I stand by my advice.
Look at page 4, "Registration for Two or More Works with One Application and Fee."
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf
A group of unpublished works can be registered as a collection, but that does not mean that each work is not entitled, standing alone, to copyright protection. It does not mean that each "work" ceases to be a "work" for copyright purposes.
A group of published works can be registered on one application so long as the registration is for a "unit of publishing." The example is a board game with all of its constituent works, but it can just as easily be something like a published photo gallery.
I assure you that many professional photographers regularly submit these sorts of registration, and they are protected when they do so. It is a standard industry practice.
It is absolutely NOT the law that one must fill out a form and pay $45 for every click of the shutter.
You may also want to look at:
Registration of Photographs
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl107.html
Group Registration of Published Photographs
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl124.html
I stand by my advice.
Look at page 4, "Registration for Two or More Works with One Application and Fee."
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf
A group of unpublished works can be registered as a collection, but that does not mean that each work is not entitled, standing alone, to copyright protection. It does not mean that each "work" ceases to be a "work" for copyright purposes.
A group of published works can be registered on one application so long as the registration is for a "unit of publishing." The example is a board game with all of its constituent works, but it can just as easily be something like a published photo gallery.
I assure you that many professional photographers regularly submit these sorts of registration, and they are protected when they do so. It is a standard industry practice.
It is absolutely NOT the law that one must fill out a form and pay $45 for every click of the shutter.
You may also want to look at:
Registration of Photographs
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl107.html
Group Registration of Published Photographs
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl124.html
- Status