Opinions on taking photos off sites

Am I right?

[dpd1]

I'm just curious what people's opinion on this is... I discovered that a person with a site that has a similar subject matter as mine, took numerous photos from a certain photographer off my site and put them on his. I had received the photos in raw form from the photographer (who I know personally), processed them myself, and then researched the info to go with the photos. This person also copied the info over to his site. After contacting him, it turns out the photographer told him it was OK to use the photos. My response was: That's great, except it's not his site, it's my site. The photos are unique and were not posted in any public type of upload site or forum. In other words, they were only on my site. I feel if he wanted to contact the photographer directly and get them from him, that's a different story. Obviously that would be between them. But to just blatantly take stuff off another site seems wrong to me. I probably have about 10 hours of work in the page of content he took.

I've tried to get this guy to see it from my point of view, but he's being stubborn and insisting he didn't do anything wrong. I feel that he did. I'm just wondering what other people think. Am I in the right?

[jdMorgan]

With permission, you have created a 'derivative work' based on the original photographs. You hold copyright to that derivative work.

If you had paid the photographer for all rights to the photos your case would be even stronger, as you would own the original work as well. But that does not affect your rights to the derivative work.

See the government Website for Copyright in your country (e.g. www.uspto.gov) and contact an attorney familiar with Copyright for more information. Look into "DMCA takedown" as well, but before having the other site taken down, be very, very sure that you're right and have all documentation required to back up your claim.

I am not a lawyer.

Jim

[londrum]

bear in my mind that you might annoy the original photographer who may feel that you claiming unfair rights over his work (even if, in the eyes of the law, you are allowed).
presumably he put a lot of work into the photos too, and if he happily gave you free use of them on your site then is it worth peeing him off?

[dpd1]

Thanks JD, and yes londrum that did cross my mind. In fact, the photographer doesn't seem to think it's a big deal either. I just feel that I don't have a choice though, because I think it's a very real possibility that this guy will just keep on doing this if I don't try and set a precedent. Obviously he sees no problem with it at all. All I know is that I spent about 10 hours working on the page, and it probably took him all of an hour to copy it all over to his site.

[jdMorgan]

> you claiming unfair rights over his work

dpd1 *is not* claiming rights on the photographer's work. dpd1 *is* claiming rights on the editing work that was put into re-formatting the original photographer's work for use on dpd1's site.

The result is inarguably a unique 'derivative work' based on the original, and as such, is protected under copyright.

It's fairly simple: dpd1 claims copyright on the ten hours of editing work put into the photo.

Simple example: Phrases might be taken from copyrighted works (under the terms of "fair use") and put into a book of famous quotes. The resulting book of quotes is copyrightable as a derivative work, but copyrighting that book of quotes does not diminish the copyrights on the original works.

dpd1, I suggest you watermark your edited images in the future, and purchase the rights to the photos outright or obtain exclusive re-publishing rights if and when possible. Then you've got a clear case against anyone who copies them.

Jim

[dpd1]

Well, a little persuasion finally got him to come around and see my side of it. Sometimes a little honey catches more flies than a swatter. Thanks for the advice, and I'll probably be taking better precautions in the future.