Daghouse.com

by **MXV** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:18 am

Found out the other day that Brooklyn Vegan had stolen one of my COC photos, cropped out the watermark, and used it in one of their show reviews. It was a photo from 2011 and I found it because they credited me in the article thinking that somehow that makes it OK to steal from me and not pay me the licensing fee.

I called them out on it and emailed them an invoice which they ignored. Last night they changed the page but I wisely saved out the original before that could happen.

I'm so angered by this that I am going to take legal action. I have two friends who happen to be lawyers so one of them will do it for a cut of the take I'm sure, if not pro bono.

These assholes need to be shamed. Please spread the word. If you guys use twitter, please RT this that I posted yesterday and try to get as many people as possible to do the same:

Here's a link to the tweet I sent:
https://twitter.com/thepunkvault/status ... 6037625856

and here's to one I posted with a screenshot of their crime:
https://twitter.com/thepunkvault/status ... 8922378240

Hopefully it shames them into paying the invoice before I have to take it to the next step. Fuck these guys!

Website · by **JGJR** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:23 am

Kinda conflicted about this to be honest. While clearly I think they should pay you and what they did is wrong (especially if there is a stipulation on your website re: licensing fees; part of what I do for a living involves licensing historical images, so I am sensitive to this), is it worth the legal fees you may incur?

Plus, I know a guy who writes for them, so there's that, too. He wouldn't have covered COC (he does mostly indie type stuff) and I'd like to think he's more ethical than that, though.

by **Welly** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:28 am

Fuck it.

by **earthdog70** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:39 am

If you have a lawyer that will do it for free, then yes you should pursue this. Hopefully the bad PR will just make them pay you right away however.

by **Welly** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:49 am

Fuck it.

by **MXV** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 11:12 am

I have never used a photo without permission.

Credit and free advertising don't put food on my table, pay the bills, pay for my gear, or pay for my time that I spent shooting photos at that show. I own those images and they even had copyright watermarks on them which BV cropped out.

Would you let it slide if someone stole your wallet or broke into your home? I mean they liked your money or your possessions so you should flattered right?

I make part of my living by photography. This is theft. It is not flattery, it is some arrogant and ignorant asshole stealing my work and using it for his gain.

If I take legal action, he'll be on the hook for damages too which will be far more than the licensing fee I invoiced him for. This is the law, just because someone may think people's images should be free for the taking that is not the case at all and it has been proving in a court of law before.

Look up the laws of photo copyright. Mike COC is a public figure performing in a public venue. He doesn't have to sign likeness rights to me and in fact if he wanted to use my photo of him he'd have to license it from me.

JGJR if you knew a rapist would you be conflicted about how you feel about the issue because you know him? Tell your buddy to email me at punkvault AT gmail DOT com and pay me my fee and apologize for his crime.

by **The Snake** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 11:26 am

OK, I´m finding out lots of photos on the net and I don´t know if they are put on the net with permission of the authors (and I´m thinking here mostly about older photos).
So, if I put these photos in my zine or on my blog, is this stealing?
Because, I don´t get payed for my zine or my blog, I do it for the love of the writing, music and hc/punk.
No disrespect to MXV, of course.

by **MXV** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 11:38 am

Yes it is theft.

It doesn't matter if you don't make any money, it is still theft. Look up photo copyright laws on the google.

by **The Snake** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 11:48 am

Even if it is from some old website that is not functioning anymore and even if there is no credit anywhere?

by **seanTM** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:15 pm

Please post the photo in question so I can replicate it using MS Paint.

by **scannest** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:59 pm

This isn't some guy re-posting a photo for his blog. I just visited the BV website and there are banner ads for Spotify and American Express. They can pay people for using their photos.
And the kicker is that I see BV photographers at almost every show. Granted, they're freelancers, but they have folks taking pictures at everything.

by **MXV** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:00 pm

The Snake wrote:Even if it is from some old website that is not functioning anymore and even if there is no credit anywhere?

I can't tell if you are trolling me or just that clueless to copyright law. Google that shit but the short and long answer is yes!

by **The Snake** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:05 pm

MXV wrote:
The Snake wrote:Even if it is from some old website that is not functioning anymore and even if there is no credit anywhere?

I can't tell if you are trolling me or just that clueless to copyright law. Google that shit but the short and long answer is yes!

I´m not trolling and I am clueless to copyright law, that is why I asked the questions.

by **paul** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:05 pm

It's pretty shady if they cropped out the credit and then after you contacted them didn't send you any kind of explanation, in my opinion. if they forgot to give credit, then took the image down after you contacted them because they didn't want to pay you, that would be understandable.

Website · by **JGJR** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:24 pm

MXV wrote:JGJR if you knew a rapist would you be conflicted about how you feel about the issue because you know him? Tell your buddy to email me at punkvault AT gmail DOT com and pay me my fee and apologize for his crime.

I am sympathetic to your cause up to a point and I know that you're stating an extreme example like that to make a point. Still, it's really silly to illustrate it like that (and ultimately harmful for you because it makes you look petty) and I think you know that (or at least, I hope so).

Regardless, the person I know who writes for them had nothing to do with the piece, so I absolutely won't do that. You've been in contact with them and it's time for them to make the next move. I really do hope that for your sake you can settle this somehow without litigation.

by **Welly** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Fuck it.

by **MXV** » Sun Nov 09, 2014 7:39 pm

Update:

Despite how some of you feel that I shouldn't be paid for my work and that photo credit should be good enough (really? well then you should all be doing whatever various jobs you have for free too then and just be paid with a "thank you"), the main dude behind Brooklyn Vegan sent me a very nice apology letter and paypaled me my licensing fee. I thought his letter was very classy and heartfelt and I applaud him for respecting what I do and doing the right thing.

Lars? Seriously? Maybe the rape analogy was harsh but if someone stole your wallet and then used the cash in it to buy something, would it make it ok if he did that as long as he told people he bought the item with your money? Just because I was raised by punk rock doesn't mean I shouldn't be paid for my craft and that laws governing copyright and intellectual property don't exist.

I'm really disappointed with those of you who somehow think that someone stealing a photographer's work and using it without permission is fine as long as they gave you credit for it. You are all part of the problem and contribute to the devaluation of our (photographers) craft.

by **the mean** » Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:27 pm

MXV wrote:Maybe the rape analogy was harsh

If by "harsh" you mean "wildly inappropriate and shitty," then, yeah.

by **earthdog70** » Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:27 pm

I'm glad they did the right thing MXV :!:

Website · by **JGJR** » Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:57 pm

the mean wrote:
MXV wrote:Maybe the rape analogy was harsh

If by "harsh" you mean "wildly inappropriate and shitty," then, yeah.

This; regardless, I'm glad the matter was settled. Everything I've ever heard about the guy who runs BV supports the notion that he would do what he eventually did, so I'm glad to hear that.

by **Welly** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:30 am

Fuck it.

by **FormerLurker** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:58 am

Seems like they would have handled it nicely from the get-go. Oh well.

by **yourenotevil** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:58 am

Welly wrote:
MXV wrote:Update:

Despite how some of you feel that I shouldn't be paid for my work and that photo credit should be good enough (really? well then you should all be doing whatever various jobs you have for free too then and just be paid with a "thank you"), the main dude behind Brooklyn Vegan sent me a very nice apology letter and paypaled me my licensing fee. I thought his letter was very classy and heartfelt and I applaud him for respecting what I do and doing the right thing.

Lars? Seriously? Maybe the rape analogy was harsh but if someone stole your wallet and then used the cash in it to buy something, would it make it ok if he did that as long as he told people he bought the item with your money? Just because I was raised by punk rock doesn't mean I shouldn't be paid for my craft and that laws governing copyright and intellectual property don't exist.

I'm really disappointed with those of you who somehow think that someone stealing a photographer's work and using it without permission is fine as long as they gave you credit for it. You are all part of the problem and contribute to the devaluation of our (photographers) craft.

Hey man, when you've finished salving that sore arse maybe you'll be able to see beyond the toys you threw out of your pram that are obscuring your view of your monitor, and see that all I was saying that there are different ways of approaching these things. Personally, I'd have just let it slide, but that's just me. We're all different. That was my post. I was just throwing an alternative view out there.

I'm glad you got paid, and agree with you about your work, although I disagree with your methods. It was fairly obvious from your post that you'd done nothing concrete about it, and were simply speculating about some lawyers you may or may not know possibly doing something for you for free. We also know from your previous posts here, that you are not exactly rich, so ranting and raving on the internet (did you post this shit on Facebook or elswhere?), potentially inviting legal action against yourself in doing so, was completely ineffectual and achieved nothing.

Again, good work on getting paid, this happened because you contacted them directly. Maybe next time, wait a while before you scream shit all over the internet.

Yours intellectualpropertingly,

Shitface.

this. totally agree. also, the rape analogy was beyond fucking ridiculous and lame. i also have a question since you were asking us to tweet about this and everything- how much do you charge for someone to use your photo? 50 or maybe 100 dollars? do you really think you would have gotten anything but that amount in a small claims court? because that is where you were going, and you wouldn't need a lawyer for that either. i think everyone could see it from your side, but your reaction is what is souring people.

by **obik** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:09 am

yourenotevil wrote:this. totally agree. also, the rape analogy was beyond fucking ridiculous and lame.

Absolutely.

how much do you charge for someone to use your photo? 50 or maybe 100 dollars? do you really think you would have gotten anything but that amount in a small claims court? because that is where you were going, and you wouldn't need a lawyer for that either.

Copyright claims are not handled in small claims court. MXV would've gone to big boy court and assuming he had copyright registration in hand (even ex-post facto emergency registration) and a lawyer you wasn't a total incompetent, he would have won a substantial financial judgment.

There are normal folks posting images on the internet and then there are businessmen stealing other people's work and using it commercially. This is the latter. It wasn't accidental, it wasn't innocent, and it was done for financial gain.

MXV chose to get pissed off, bluster on the internet, and send an invoice.

I would've sent a lawyer, myself.

And in case it needs to be said: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.

by **Welly** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:11 am

Fuck it.

by **obik** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:11 am

Welly wrote:
obik wrote:
MXV chose to get pissed off, bluster on the internet, and send an invoice.

I would've sent a lawyer, myself.

Who would've said; first port of call: send an invoice.

No copyright lawyer in the world would tell you that.

Seriously.

by **Welly** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:19 am

Fuck it.

by **yourenotevil** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:20 am

obik wrote:
yourenotevil wrote:this. totally agree. also, the rape analogy was beyond fucking ridiculous and lame.

Absolutely.

how much do you charge for someone to use your photo? 50 or maybe 100 dollars? do you really think you would have gotten anything but that amount in a small claims court? because that is where you were going, and you wouldn't need a lawyer for that either.

Copyright claims are not handled in small claims court. MXV would've gone to big boy court and assuming he had copyright registration in hand (even ex-post facto emergency registration) and a lawyer you wasn't a total incompetent, he would have won a substantial financial judgment.

There are normal folks posting images on the internet and then there are businessmen stealing other people's work and using it commercially. This is the latter. It wasn't accidental, it wasn't innocent, and it was done for financial gain.

MXV chose to get pissed off, bluster on the internet, and send an invoice.

I would've sent a lawyer, myself.

And in case it needs to be said: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.

if this is true why didn't he follow through and try to cash in? seems like he was more interested in revenge than anything else. also, it is a shitty website using a photo from a story that is what, like 3 years old? i hardly doubt BV is rolling in the dough. even if he won a big settlement, i doubt they would be able to pay it. still want to know how much he charges for a photo.

by **obik** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:15 am

yourenotevil wrote:if this is true why didn't he follow through and try to cash in?

You don't have to doubt the truth of my statement--a cursory examination of the law will back me up. As to MXV's actions an motivations--ask him, not me.

it is a shitty website using a photo from a story that is what, like 3 years old? i hardly doubt BV is rolling in the dough.

They have enough dough to pay the owners and any staff members. They don't have enough dough to properly license a photo?

even if he won a big settlement, i doubt they would be able to pay it.

Please. Brooklyn Vegan could easily pay a four figure settlement out of court. Five figures in court? Well, that might sink 'em, but that's their own fucking problem. I might have some sympathy if there hadn't been a copyright notice that they deliberately cropped out.

Brooklyn Vegan was in the wrong. Brooklyn Vegan stole from MXV and used it to add value to their commercial website. Whether they could deal with the legal and/or financial consequences is quite irrelevant.

by **obik** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:17 am

Welly wrote:
obik wrote:
Welly wrote:
obik wrote:
MXV chose to get pissed off, bluster on the internet, and send an invoice.

I would've sent a lawyer, myself.

Who would've said; first port of call: send an invoice.

No copyright lawyer in the world would tell you that.

Seriously.

My dealings must've been with the one decent guy in the whole money pit.

I wouldn't say that was decent, honestly.

I have no love for the legal profession, no love for the courts, and no love for the law, but sending an invoice to someone who knowingly stole from you (and profited from that theft) is wrong on every level.

by **Welly** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:24 am

Fuck it.

by **MXV** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:18 pm

Before I went all over the internet about it, I had sent them an invoice a few days prior, it went ignored. It apparently went to the guy who (mis)handles their Chicago site and he ignored it. After trying to contact every email on that site with no reply, I sent the BV twitter account a tweet and was met with a pretty dismissive reply of "I find that hard to believe, we don't do that" to which I sent the link and a screen grab as proof. They took down the photo after that, no apology, no payment, no email and figured that was enough. It was only then that I went on my campaign to shame them into paying. Honestly I doubt they'd have done anything to rectify the situation aside from removing the photo and thinking that was enough and the email I finally did get pretty much alluded to that.

Why didn't I just go to a lawyer immediately? While I do have two lawyer friends who would do it for just a cut of whatever the settlement was, that is a very time consuming process for both of us. I had planned to put that in motion, however, Friday night as one of my friends I was seeing is one of those lawyers and she would have helped me out. I'm glad I saved the favor for the future however and that BV paid for the crime. Yeah I could have made more money, but I prefer the easy and less time consuming route and also feel people should at least be given a chance to do the right thing, even if it takes making an example out of them all over the internet.

Some people are fine with people lifting their work as long as they get credit for it. Photo credit doesn't keep a roof over my head or put food on my table to maintain my ever growing waistline. You may not like my methods or attitude but I assure you that this is shit that happens regularly to me and has for years. It's frustrating, especially when a successful site such as BV who certainly can afford to pay for people's photos did it and then ignored me until they started getting shit from people on twitter and it started to make them look bad.

The main BV guy explained the situation about how it was someone who does the Chicago site that did it who must have been a clueless moron (my words) that thought stealing photos is fine as long as you credit the photographer. This goes back to the entire problem I brought up in an earlier post about people devaluing the craft and thinking everything is free. Also you don't accidentally crop out someone's watermark after you take their photo and post it on your site. That shit was deliberate.

I'm happy with the resolution. I hope it at least briefly will make people think before they steal. The guy sent a nice letter explaining what happened and he promptly paid my invoice. I sent him one back further explaining my stance and thanked him for doing the right thing and even told them I was a little surprised that a site of their stature didn't already have checks in place to prevent such things from happening.

So the story had a happy ending. The amount of money I charge isn't the issue here, whether it is 50 dollars or 500 dollars and neither is how long ago the photo was taken (or stolen). All money is a lot of money to me and it is money I'm entitled to because it is my property.

by **Welly** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:41 pm

Fuck it.

by **the mean** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 1:06 pm

How much money should I have demanded from Green Day to let them use my photos of their first show in their upcoming film about "the early years?"

I just sent the negatives over (they are being returned) with a "happy to help out" note.

by **scannest** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 1:41 pm

I don't get the hostility towards MXV at all. He was pissed that a commercial website used one of his photos without permission or compensation. He is professional photographer, fer crissakes.
Y'all are being dicks. Well, not all y'all. But some a y'all.

by **Welly** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 1:50 pm

Fuck it.

by **seanTM** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:25 pm

scannest wrote:I don't get the hostility towards MXV at all. He was pissed that a commercial website used one of his photos without permission or compensation. He is professional photographer, fer crissakes.
Y'all are being dicks. Well, not all y'all. But some a y'all.

Oh, he's got a valid point. He's just being kinda twatty whilst making it.

by **yourenotevil** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:00 pm

i was curious as to how much you charged, just for the record. like i said, it was the way you went about it, not the actual issue of having your work stolen. you came in here looking for support and didn't really get any. just saying you could have gone about it better and used some better analogies.

by **MXV** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:42 am

I don't think I was being twatty at all. I had my work stolen by a large commercial website and was being given the brush when I confronted them about it. I came here to tell you, my daghouse friends, my tale and was given all kinds of shit and basically the attitude was "so what, you should be happy for the free publicity" and that I was somehow not entitled to be compensated for my work. I found some of the comments here pretty offensive and they honestly surprised me and hurt my feelings which in turn infuriated me even more.

Thank you to those of you who actually get it and took my side. I appreciate it.

by **MXV** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:51 am

the mean wrote:How much money should I have demanded from Green Day to let them use my photos of their first show in their upcoming film about "the early years?"

I just sent the negatives over (they are being returned) with a "happy to help out" note.

You gave them away for free?! To a band who are multimillionaires and could certainly afford to give back to someone for materials for a film?!

You absolutely should have charged them for the photos. They are going into a commercial product they will sell and make plenty of money from. You should have at least asked what they would offer for compensation.

When the production company for that Foo Fighters HBO show came to me looking for photos, I asked them to pick what they wanted then when they picked one, I asked what they are offering for compensation for the license to use them. They came back with a price which I was completely happy with and didn't even bother to haggle. I agreed, signed the release and I had a check in my mailbox 5 days later. It couldn't have been any easier. They were very nice folks. Had they come back giving me the old line, "we don't have any budget to purchase photos" then I'd have replied that then they aren't going to be having any photos. People will use that bullshit line on you all the time in hopes of getting something for free. I turn them down every time.

by **FormerLurker** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:15 am

Good thread.

by **obik** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:34 am

MXV wrote:
the mean wrote:How much money should I have demanded from Green Day to let them use my photos of their first show in their upcoming film about "the early years?"

I just sent the negatives over (they are being returned) with a "happy to help out" note.

You gave them away for free?! To a band who are multimillionaires and could certainly afford to give back to someone for materials for a film?!

I've also given work away for free to people and organizations who could certainly afford to pay.

Money isn't everything. Respect is.

by **Welly** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:02 pm

Fuck it.

by **obik** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:35 pm

Welly wrote:
obik wrote:Money isn't everything. Respect is.

Precisely.

I've always liked you.

I just today got in contact with an old punk photographer about use of a photo. She was really happy I even asked because other people have put her stuff all over the net without asking.

Bev?

by **scannest** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:46 pm

Welly wrote:I just today got in contact with an old punk photographer about use of a photo. She was really happy I even asked because other people have put her stuff all over the net without asking. She just wants a copy of the finished thing from me, and sees it as a silver lining that I saw it via those other people and got in touch.

So, since people have gotten used to being f*cked in the @ss, you're the good guy cuz you offered to lube up and wear a condom?

More importantly, I'm guessing that whatever you are doing is likely a labor of love and not going to generate a lot of/any profit. Of course she's willing to provide her art in return for a finished copy. Cuz that's fair. And that is still a "payment' of sorts. I wonder if the people making that Green Day DVD will send the mean a copy. Probably not. Heck, Ian offered me a free download of the Fugazi show I taped and sent to him. Again, cuz it's the right thing to do.

by **obik** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:52 pm

scannest wrote:So, since people have gotten used to being f*cked in the @ss, you're the good guy cuz you offered to lube up and wear a condom?

Way to completely miss the point, Sal.

Welly wrote:
obik wrote:Money isn't everything. Respect is.

Precisely.

by **Welly** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:54 pm

Fuck it.

by **scannest** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:46 pm

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted the sentence "She was really happy I even asked because other people have put her stuff all over the net without asking."

by **Welly** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:56 pm

Fuck it.

by **scannest** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:05 pm

Welly wrote:I think your dislike of me means you read my posts from the starting point of: asshole.

I don't dislike you at all. In fact, when this board when was in danger of becoming the Greg/JGJR/VS show (and no offense to those guys, either - it just got a little...heavy around here when the U2 record came out), you were one of the reasons I kept coming back.

Who is online