Hi all, new member here.

I was poking around seeing what was being sold, and I found a photograph of mine being sold here. I immediately filed a report with CUP. My question to the community is this: What recourse do I have for pursuing the offender? I can easily prove ownership of the image since I own the 35mm slide. I assume that CP will pull the specific product. Can I request the earnings for that product?

Thanks in advance.

CUP will assist you in dealing with it up to a point.

If you want to deal with damages/earnings it will likely involve your using an attorney.

You can get info from CP about what/how much they can do by communicating with them directly. There is, like I said, likely to be a point where they have to let you and an attorney deal with the rest - CUP isn't a judge nor legal counsel for shopkeepers.

You took the correct first step. CUP will contact you requesting some information including proof of ownership.

Beyond that, it's possible you'll need to seek legal advice/assistance regarding recouping any earnings, if there were earnings.

Good luck.

P.S. Hmmm..looks like Blipfish and I were posting almost at the same time.

Is CP good about removing products that violate copyright?

I can provide CP with a scan of the image from my 35mm slide, which shows certain unique characteristics in the image...I hope that is enough for CP to agree on my side. I hate having someone sell my image, particularly when I'm developing ideas for selling it too.

CP is good about following the proper procedure.

I say that because some people think that making a claim is the same thing as providing proof. However, since you have what would likely be considered proof... you should have no problem with CP's process. They do, however, reserve the right to make a person file a proper claim and it may take a short back-and-forth with their department to complete that process. Every case is different.

Just be advised that CP is unlikely to be the proper authority to simply hand over money in earnings. That's a separate issue. CP absolutely follows legal requirements but, along those lines, may not simply be able to just take a shopkeeper's profits and give them to you. That's a legal process you'd have to follow in addition to your takedown request.

I think you'll find the CUP department easy to work with as long as you have realistic expectations and are willing to go through the process. Some people get frustrated because they think crying "thief" should bring the wrath of Thor down just based on their say-so. I know, it sounds silly but some folks aren't prepared to do it by the numbers.

Yes, CP removes infringing images. Doesn't always happen overnight because there has to be an exchange of information.

But once an infringment is established, they do take action.

And only the people at the CUP email address can tell you what types of information (such as a scan) they will require. Every case is different.

If you plan on contacting an attorney and pursuing damages, it's probably in your best interest to discontinue this discussion on a public board.

(edited to add: who knew a fish could type that fast?)

thanks for the comments.

I don't think I want to get a lawyer involved or anything, just want the guy to stop.

Cheers!

quote:

I don't think I want to get a lawyer involved or anything, just want the guy to stop.

Most infringers don't know they're infringing and stop as soon as they're notified.

However, the infringer could sign an affidavit stating that they own copyright to the image and CP might allow them to continue selling it. That happened to me years ago on another web site. A guy was selling CDs with hundred of my photos on them and was allowed to continue selling them. He committed perjury in signing the affidavit and I had to hire an attorney to get him to stop.

If you've registered the image with the US Copyright Office www.copyright.gov you can sue for actual damages (the money the infringer earned from the image) plus legal fees and you can be awarded punitive damages of up to $150,000 per image.

If your work is not registered, you can only sue for actual damages; which makes that option financially absurd. You might spend $20,000 to win a judgment for $100.

I strongly urge you to read the FAQ and copyright basics at www.copyright.gov and register your photos for future protection. You can register hundreds or thousands of photos all at once for the $45 fee... the rules are posted on the site, it's something like all photos taken during the same calendar year can be registered for one fee, and/or a bunch of photos that are part of a "collection" can be registered together.

They have a new electronic registration also, it's $10 less than registering by snail mail and you can upload a bunch of thumbnail images instead of mailing in CDs or DVDs.

Let me get a little more specific. CafePress will not be the decider of who is right and who is wrong. They will require that you file a notice that complies with the requirements of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The requirements are very specific and not difficult to meet. They do, however, require confirming ownership of the copyright under penalty of perjury. Signing this statement without the advice of an attorney has a risk. If the person submitting the claim has made an error in the law they can be liable to the other party. That can get expensive. Do people sign such statements without legal adivce? Of course. And some do fine, and some get bitten.

There are two great resources on copyright violation. The first takes the perspective of the person infringed upon. http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/ The second is primarily focused on cyber bullies who claim rights that are overbroad, overbearing, or just plain obnoxious. In other words they explain how (and whether) a person receiving such a complaint can properly reject it. And failing the ability to reject, how they can respond to limit liability.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/

Both sources will teach you how to write the required DMCA notice.

If you file a proper DMCA notice CP will put the item on pending. They then notify the shop keeper who has an opportunity to respond. What happens next depends upon that response. Again both resources will explain how that works.

quote:

I don't think I want to get a lawyer involved or anything, just want the guy to stop.

Keep in mind that this will not prevent this person from selling merchandise with your photo in other venues -- other PODs, stock photography, etc. You'll likely still have to deal with this eventually.

Lorilei

Are you sure they're not an affiliate? If your picture is in the marketplace anyone can use it & try to sell it as an affiliate.

I am fairly new on CafePress, so I am not too familiar with all the rules yet, but lots of times I come across a shop where designs are being sold that the shop keeper did not create him/herself. For example I have seen quite a few designs taken from old school artists or ethnic designs etc. I thought the whole point was that we are supposed to come up with our own original designs and not just download some picture from the internet and put it on the T-shirts- everybody can do that. It has taken me years to become a professional illustrator and I put a lot of time and effort into my designs, and it just seems wrong that some people take the easy way... Is this legal?

~Turtle

The Turtle Shop

The point of CP is actually expression for everyone. It encourages people of all range of skill to participate. Some people use clip art, some use public domain sources, some do their own, some use licensed images, and yes ... some use images that they should not. In some sense that "everyone can do that" is the point. CP wants people to feel able and enabled. Whatever we may think of the originality and artisitic merit of some items they do sell, and that is the business CP is in. CP is not primarily an artistic organization but instead an expression outlet.

Whether what you see is legal depends. Some is, some isn't. Reworking old masters can be, if it is old enough.

Tens of thousands of images are uploaded daily, and there is a broad mixture of official shops, licensed images, original creators etc. That makes it difficult to police whether images are in compliance with the rules. Because images CAN be licensed CP is not usually going to do much more than keep an eye on things if someone other than the rights holder reports an infringement. But there are a large number of types of images where CP has standing communication with rights holders. Reporting suspected image infringements is viewed as a good thing, even if nothing immediate comes of it. OTOH CP must use care that such reports are credible.