Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Montreal Mirror, work "taken"  (Read 3107 times)

torontonic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Montreal Mirror, work "taken"
« on: November 11, 2008, 09:36:40 AM »

« Last Edit: November 11, 2008, 10:42:13 AM by torontonic »
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11198
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Montreal Mirror, work "taken"
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2008, 10:39:34 AM »

Both links seem to be broken.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

torontonic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Montreal Mirror, work "taken"
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2008, 10:41:25 AM »

Quote from: EricM
Both links seem to be broken.

Fixed!
« Last Edit: November 11, 2008, 10:42:33 AM by torontonic »
Logged

BFoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
    • Brad's blog
Montreal Mirror, work "taken"
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2008, 01:23:47 PM »

The problem now, is that the paper has just figured out a cost effective way of obtaining digital art. Your story sets a precedence for further copyright infringement.

In essence, they try to get it for free (COST = $0) and if that fails on the threat of legal action, an offer for substantially less (COST = 30%) is made with little regard or fear of litigation. As this model is implimented more, the market value of legitimate work will be diminished, further hitting us in the back pocket.

This should be taken up with your government representative to encourage legislation, that if copyright infingrment is proven, as you did, a fine of $1000 per infringement applies. the government recoups the cash and re-imburses the plantif. Just a thought!


Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11198
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Montreal Mirror, work "taken"
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2008, 11:51:44 PM »

Quote from: torontonic
Fixed!
I'm glad you fixed the links. Your story is indeed appalling. I like BFoto's suggestion, too, but in addition to the fine I think the editor, the "junior" editor, and anybody at the paper who was aware of the watermark removal should be jailed.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Montreal Mirror, work "taken"
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2008, 12:09:30 AM »

How deep are their pockets?
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11198
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Montreal Mirror, work "taken"
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2008, 10:34:21 AM »

Quote from: DarkPenguin
How deep are their pockets?
What I'd really like to see (wishful thinking, I know) is this: your attorney gets a court injunction to prevent Montreal Mirror from publishing any photographs at all until such time as they have paid you triple damages ($450, and not just $350), plus court costs and your attorney's fees. You can bet the attorneys they threaten to countersue with cost them a lot more than $450. What creeps!
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

BFoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
    • Brad's blog
Montreal Mirror, work "taken"
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2008, 09:39:08 PM »

The biggest issue is to ensure that the fine/penalty for infringement is substantially greater than paying for the work in the first place.
Pages: [1]   Go Up