Designer Threatened With Copyright Infringement Claims... On His Own Work
from the hurray-for-copyright dept
A whole bunch of people have been submitting this story all weekend, about how designer Jon Engle is is accused of copyright infringement for his own designs. The site is down right now, but Google cache has it. Basically, the story is that a stock art site claims that it owns the copyright on 65 logos that this guy created for clients -- and is demanding he pay $275 for each one (which is actually somewhat low, given what they could demand). He's not sure how the images got on the stock art site, but it looks like someone just took the images of logos from a showcase site, removed the text, and uploaded the icons themselves. He explained this to them, but instead of an embarrassed apology:When I refused to pay the bill they hired a law firm specializing in copyright infringement. The attorney called and offered a settlement of $18,000. How is that any different than the bill? I refuse to pay THEM for work I created. That is the epitomy of ridiculous. The attorney didn't like my response. He threatened to sue. I say BRING IT ON! I have no doubt I can win in court.So what did the lawyers do? They started going after all of Engle's clients, telling them that their images infringe on its copyright and that Engle is "being investigated for copyright infringement."
However, the new tactic I discovered this morning is so much harder to fight. They are calling or emailing every one of my clients they can find. They inform the client that I'm being investigated for copyright infringement and that the logo I designed for them may have been stolen from their client. After discovering my ban from Design Outpost I began contacting clients to see exactly who they've been in touch with. So far, I've heard back from three. In every case so far my client is furious with me. They took the lawyer's warning at face value without bothering to contact me. I understand their reaction to an extent. I'm sure they're worried that they may be sued as well for using 'stolen' artwork and the best thing they can do is distance themselves from me.Nice to see copyright law "protecting" the artist again.
I feel like this is nothing more than an underhanded campaign meant to demoralize me and destroy my reputation. If you read through their website you can see they work on contingency. This means they don't get paid if their client doesn't get paid. I've also made it very clear there's no way in hell that I'll ever pay up. I'll declare bankruptcy and go to work for McDonald's before that happens. Are they thinking they can beat me into submission? Do they think I'll agree to a settlement to make it all go away? Guess again. I have the truth on my side and I will NEVER pay a rip-off artist or their extortionist lawyers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: accusations, copyright, design, jon engle
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Here's the rub: Because he didn't take any time to protect his own work or really create an ongoing catalog of his work, but has taken the time to publish his work in all sorts of places, he left himself open for this.
Obviously the stock photo place's lawyers are playing hardball, but they are doing what they need to do. Mr Engle doesn't look like he really has a ton of proof that he created those logos, which leaves him in the lurch. While contacting his clients may seem rough, I think that this is their next logical step in the process (after all, the logos they are using are infringing, as far as they can tell.
I know it sucks, but this is where this gets a little weird:
He made the logos, he put them out there in public in digital form, and guess what? They became a sort of infinite good. Someone else picked them up, submitted them to a logo site as their own work, and no our artist has to prove he made the originals - with not much to work from, it seems. He has a bunch of scraps of information (according to his website) but really doesn't have anything solid.
In reality, copyright is protecting the artist, the one who sold the logos to the stock photo place. If Mr Engel is the original artist (and there is no reason to doubt him), then he should have no problem producing proof. Without it, well, he screwed himself by not taking a short amount of time to document his work and properly retain records.
I have the truth on my side and I will NEVER pay a rip-off artist or their extortionist lawyers.
If he had the truth on his side, he should sue them back. But I think he lacks the documentation to prove his case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If he had the truth on his side
That, plus affidavits from some clients should be enough to establish the date that the image was created. So a lack of documentation isn't a factor. The cost of the lawsuit might be interesting but he is suffering real damage from if the lawyers are lying, and contacting the clients would be intentional damage so he has a case for counter-suing for damages - and possibly even counter-suing the lawyers, not the website which might have no assets beyond his own art.
Or, he's lying and blustering???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...I know, don't feed the troll...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. In this case, copyright is protecting the intellectual thief here.
What you're saying basically amounts to "screw 'em, it's his fault his work was plagiarized; he set himself up for it amirite?"
That doesn't justify him getting sued for someone else's underhanded scheme. Criticizing the guy for it is kind of a d*ck move.
They then prepared the bill and sent it to me. The good thing is that the bill gives me a record of every single image they took from me. That helps me gather dates, sketches, emails, etc to help me prove my case. The bad thing is that despite my explanations and proof, they will not let this go.
Wait, what was that thing you said about him not having a case? Oh, right. Hold the phone, here's more:
Thankfully, I have a lot of incidental proof. I would never have thought to plan for something like this, but now I wish I had.
Oh man, I love WH's skewed statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For an artist, that should not be hard. If he has the proof, not only should he not be sued, but in fact he should be suing them for stealing his work (and passing it off as their own).
Once again, another Techdirt post where we are missing too much information to draw any conclusions, but enough for the usual suspects to get all huffy and indignant and call for the burning down of the copyright system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would counter sue have them pay all lawyer fees, court costs, lost wages, defamation, and for harassment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You create a logo using Illustrator. I copy your logo, and even trace it using Illustrator.
We both have the logo and we both have a vector copy of the logo. I can even set the "created" date on that file to be whatever I want.
Prove that you made the logo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
- I sent it to my client over email. I have a time-stamped email, my client has one, too. They sign an affadivit that they received it. They can show that it was used in their materials from a certain date.
- Although you can fake a created data, the data my client has on the original logo file is the same as I have.
The key here is that the orignial (real) artist is not the ONLY one to have the older, time-stamped files. So, too, do his clients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Easily faked.
They sign an affadivit that they received it.
They could be lying. Maybe they are in collusion with you.
They can show that it was used in their materials from a certain date.
Unless it was an archived public publication or something like that it could still be faked.
- Although you can fake a created data, the data my client has on the original logo file is the same as I have.
File dates are easy to change. Even in a conspiracy.
The key here is that the orignial (real) artist is not the ONLY one to have the older, time-stamped files. So, too, do his clients.
I think I've shown how that isn't necessarily true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your argument that file-dates are not absolute 100% proof is correct. But irrelevant. My point isn't about the veracity of the file dates, but that it becomes the word of many against the word of one. This wins cases.
Johnny-Q said he could fake dates, so how can you ever prove it. I said that you could prove it with corroborating witnesses. You argue back that "one can fake dates". Thanks for adding to the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's not true at all. Proving he created the logos is just the beginning. He also has to be able to hire expensive lawyers and engage in a potentially expensive legal battle with a well funded corporation. None of that is free and a lot of people just can't afford justice in today's corporate world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From the site:
"Thankfully, I have a lot of incidental proof. ... The logos on LogoPond have a date stamp showing when I uploaded them to the site. This is good, especially if the designs were stolen from my showcase. My submission date will always be earlier than theirs. Even if its only by a day, first is first. Kode ( @kodespark) suggested looking at the meta data in my source files. I didn’t know about meta data before today, but there are timestamps on the files as well. All of the meta timestamps pre-date my LogoPond submissions."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am suspecting more that his incidental proof isn't as solid as he wishes it was. Meta timestamps are easily changed, so likely not very solid evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hopefully he's figured that part out at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know that as a small business owner and content creator, the potential to spend my time fighting bogus copyright infringement lawsuits is overwhelmingly appealing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again Harold, I point out that not every has the financial resources for hiring lawyers that you and your corporate buddies do. That's why you guys like to pick on the little guy who can't fight back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The issue here is not a legal battle over copyright infringement. It is extra-legal destruction of character and reputation, before anything has been discovered in court.
It actually doesn't matter if the work is his or not. The end does not justify the means. If it's a legal battle, fine, but leave the clients out of it: they will not be liable in any case.
You are continuously the spin doctor of bad copyright (is there good? I begin to wonder...). Try actually getting the point once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If nothing else, contacting clients is a clear indication that the lawyers think they have a very good case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's almost like you are taking over for dorpus...
That is as much an indication of them having a good case as Sun rising on the east and going down on the west is an indication of Earth being the center of the universe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As far as the lawyers can tell, their client does not have a valid case. There is no basis for assuming that everything your client tells you is the truth, and everything the potential defendant says is false. They have no justification to harass the artist via his clients. They are outright lying to these firms to say that he is under investigation for copyright infringement, when he is under no such thing - being threatened with a lawsuit is not being investigated.
The next logical step is to find out the original source of the images, rather than throwing integrity out the window and trying to get settlement through intimidation.
Clearly you have no idea what morality means, because your thought process boils down to who has the power in the situation, and justifies actions based on pure monetary self-interest. But it's the disregard for the importance of integrity in the legal process that is truly pathetic. A law firm should be expected to make the effort to establish facts before engaging in brute tactics to extort money from individuals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright
it's not a secret, he's got a link to them.
write them an email!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can someone help this guy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um... Copyright is not causing the problems.
The trigger happy company that is chasing Jon up for the bill are the losers in this case. Whether there was such a thing as 'copyright' or not this company would still be going after people it considers to have used their products illegally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um... Copyright is not causing the problems.
You have it right. Does it really matter that the issue is copyright? People and companies have gone after others for "protection money" or whatever you would like to call it forever. If copyright was unavailable, they would choose another, just as legal (or illegal) path. Picking on copyright in this case is like picking on baseball bats when they are used to kill someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too soft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too soft
You are absolutely correct. He needs to sue for misappropriation, defamation, and probably several other civil issues. Based only on what is available in the Techdirt post, he has a great case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not DMCA take-down stockart.com?
Whoever stole his work, apparently did it from logopond.com, so resolving this matter should be as simple as comparing the upload dates to logopond.com and stockart.com. This is perhaps the best evidence, as logopond is a third party and the designer could not fake upload dates there. He also should have the original source files with metadata showing date of creation, but that can be faked. The emails exchanged with the clients for which he made the logos are also powerful evidence.
If I was him, I would indeed consider suing stockart and it's lawyers for defamation, loss of income, and of course copyright infringement. And I would immediately send DMCA take-down notices to stockart.com for all the logos. That would make stockart liable if they didn't remove the logos, and might put them on the defensive for a change.
To me stockart and it's lawyers are not acting in good faith, when they refuse to provide evidence like upload dates and go around contacting Engle's clients. If Engle had indeed stolen those logos, he would be monstrously stupid to gather them all in a place like logopond, where he would risk exactly this kind of situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not DMCA take-down stockart.com?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not DMCA take-down stockart.com?
Also if they do remove them it would show probable guilt on the suing party since they can contest the DMCA and not remove the items if they are the right full owners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is Stock art fighting this so hard?
It makes me wonder if they truly believed that they produced the work in house and someone on staff did this sort of borrowing quite frequently and just now got caught out by their own lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is Stock art fighting this so hard?
Once you pass a case, or a collection over to a law firm or collection agency, you forget about it. It's their job now. And since these agencies are paid a portion of the fees collected (often 50%) they pursue ruthlessly. That's how they get paid. For some, being right matters less than getting paid.
Stockart may be totally oblivious to the whole deal. Of course, by now they will have been informed due to the uproar. Let's see how they react.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not DMCA take-down stockart.com?
Whoever stole his work, apparently did it from logopond.com, so resolving this matter should be as simple as comparing the upload dates to logopond.com and stockart.com. This is perhaps the best evidence, as logopond is a third party and the designer could not fake upload dates there. He also should have the original source files with metadata showing date of creation, but that can be faked. The emails exchanged with the clients for which he made the logos are also powerful evidence.
If I was him, I would indeed consider suing stockart and it's lawyers for defamation, loss of income, and of course copyright infringement. And I would immediately send DMCA take-down notices to stockart.com for all the logos. That would make stockart liable if they didn't remove the logos, and might put them on the defensive for a change.
To me stockart and it's lawyers are not acting in good faith, when they refuse to provide evidence like upload dates and go around contacting Engle's clients. If Engle had indeed stolen those logos, he would be monstrously stupid to gather them all in a place like logopond, where he would risk exactly this kind of situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with WH's view...
...is that it presupposes, as immutable natural law, a reality in which every transaction, indeed, every action, requires the services of a lawyer. A sort of mirror reality wherein, if the artist's act of creation failed register a ripple in the legal ether, his creation must be deemed to have never happened!
Right or wrong? Inapplicable!! Reality? To be determined at the bar! Justice? Justice is what the result of legal proceeding says it is!!
Only a lawyer rigorously trained in the slippery rationalizations of the guild could fail to see a problem with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with WH's view...
All that fine print is lawyer work. We just don't have to pay the lawyers for every transaction, thankfully. But pretty much everything you do in the day is covered in one way or another.
if the artist's act of creation failed register a ripple in the legal ether, his creation must be deemed to have never happened!
In this case, it's a question of proving creation. Mr Engle cannot claim creation without proof, just because he says so isn't exactly legally binging, especially as someone else has claimed and sold to the stock art place these logos, and that transaction certainly has a solid date on it. It is to Mr Engle to prove that he in fact created them.
Without proof, well, he has nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem with WH's view...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem with WH's view...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem with WH's view...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem with WH's view...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem with WH's view...
Why is it not up to stockart.com to prove that they own the copyrights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with WH's view...
that's a scary thought.
the idea that you need a lawyer to bless your idea before you can create or do anything is precisely what's wrong with concept of intellectual property. this new requirement for due diligence BEFORE the creative process is going to really hurt the creative process.
the idea that all creativity and innovation require some sort of corporate and/or government authorization and that failure to obtain that authorization leads to some sort of punishment is positively orwellian.
i am surprised there isn't some sort of doublespeak term for it, like createcrime:
"In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face...; was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime..."
the problem with that line of thinking is that it creates a notion that anything you do that might prevent an incumbent corporation (or the legal team of said corporation) from profiting is somehow criminal. i see that in the "that's stealing!" meme that comes from posters here and from the corporations themselves when a new work or idea threatens what has already been established.
listen to anything except CD's you purchased? "that's STEALING music!" let's call that earcrime.
read news and events anywhere but in the newspaper that you have paid to subscribe to? "that's stealing news!" let's call that readcrime.
watch anything except network tv with the commercials or DVD purchased at the full retail price? "that's STEALING television!" let's call that eyecrime.
use VOIP or your cell phone instead of purchasing a landline? "that's STEALING phone service!" let's call that phonecrime.
carpool with friends or take the bus instead of leasing a new car every two years? "that's STEALING transportation!" let's call that wheelcrime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem with WH's view...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem with WH's view...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird Herald is off the reservation...
>Here's the rub: Because he didn't take any time to
>protect his own work or really create an ongoing catalog
>of his work, but has taken the time to publish his work
>in all sorts of places, he left himself open for this.
Ahh... so... by your definition, if one of the movie companies makes a DVD with encryption that is VERY easy to crack, and they then sell those DVDs ALL over the place... they just leave themselves open for someone to take the movie, remove the copyright and then republish the movie? Cool!
>He made the logos, he put them out there in public in
>digital form, and guess what?
So... because a band puts their music on a website in MP3 format, you're saying that gives someone the right to take the music... copyright it... and then claim ownership? Huh?
>They became a sort of infinite good.
Much like music from a CD or movies from a DVD. They are all infinite goods. The CDs and DVDs aren't... but the "digital form" is.
>In reality, copyright is protecting the artist, the one
>who sold the logos to the stock photo place.
Honestly... are you high? A moron? Or really just posting whatever the hell pops in your head so you can start arguments?
In the REAL reality, copyright is protecting someone who STOLE the work, and then SOLD STOLEN GOODS (infinite, mind you) to a company who then copyrighted the STOLEN goods and now use the law in their favor. That is the REAL reality... not your made up fantasy land where this is somehow right.
Seriously... are you on Techdirt's payroll just to start arguments, because this one was pretty lame - and goes against things and views you've expressed previously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
When I say "protect his work" I mean to document his production of said work product. Go once a year to a notary with a print out of each of your works and a series of discs with the original digital work (if it was done that way). Have the notary sign off on the whole pile as a witness. Guess what? You have now gone the full way to protect your work and show that you created it.
So... because a band puts their music on a website in MP3 format, you're saying that gives someone the right to take the music... copyright it... and then claim ownership? Huh?
Actually, if it wasn't so hard to disguise voices, I am sure that this would have already happened. It's easier to say a computer created image is yours, rather than a song, only because the image itself doesn't contain real proof.
n the REAL reality, copyright is protecting someone who STOLE the work
We don't know that. We only have one side of the story. You are buying Mr Engel's story outright, without hearing the other side. This is exactly what Mike wants you to do. Don't question the information, don't have any interest in hearing both sides of the story, let's just damn the copyright system.
You are starting "REALITY" when it is at this point but one man's word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA USA USA USA
Dudes like Alexis de Tocqueville, Henry Kissenger, Madeleine Albright... Wish these douchebags would just stop meddling with the good ol' USA. Surely they knew much less about the country than our Anonymous Coward directly above.
Yep, gotta be born here, live here all yer life, and never leave the country if you want to be able to comment about the USA. Nope, no valid insight could come from a ferner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USA USA USA USA
I don't think that's what he was implying, I'm sure decent insights into the workings of American law can come from people in other countries. Just not Canada. Go play hide and go fuck yourself you worthless canadians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USA USA USA USA
My "xenophobic" comment above was simple telling WH that his BS comments are off base. Canada and USA are similar, but different enough that he shouldn't go about playing lawyer in America. The fact that WH is a Canadian actually does help explain why his viewpoint is the way it is. My comment was not a xenophobic statement. Its more of a: "wake up WH, American law is slightly different!!" Canada regulations are different. It's almost like WH doesnt know that our two countries legal systems dont follow the same rules.....
Lastly - Tocqueville, made a comparison of France and America, and was clear to spell out the differences. Not WH. Both Albright and Kissenger are American citizens and have been for over 50 years... So pleeeeease with your high horse Mr Kerton.
(owned)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: USA USA USA USA
And can you really "own" someone by re-writing history and then saying you were right?
Your original quote: "since you are in a different country, please stop assuming you know and why ours is so screwed up (which it is) and making ridiculous suggestions which have no basis in American reality."
Agreed that if you change that (as you did) to "Canada and USA are similar, but different enough that he shouldn't go about playing lawyer in America" your observation would be more correct, and you would not come off as intolerant of foreign thought.
However, instead of arguing based on what you wished you wrote, I went instead on what you actually DID write - which reeked of the xenophobia exhibited by the guy two above who dropped HIS $100 word "go fuck yourselves worthless Canadians." You see, I know HE wrote that, not you, so I'm not indicting you for his ignorance. But with your original statement's wording, HE is the company you keep.
Dude, watch your Ps and Qs. If it's news to you that insulting a country full of people can get you flamed, you need some more sensitivity training.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USA USA USA USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: USA USA USA USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
Because America lives in a reality all of its own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
He does that all the time.
There was one thread where he replied enough that he contradicted himself 3 times, in that thread alone!
His arguments are baseless, and trollful as they are easily debunked. And watch out for any examples you ever make. Chances are he has no reply for it and will simply say that it doesn't apply. He will never point out why. Has no reason for it other than he has no argument. So he will simply say it doesn't apply and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
Show me where I contracted myself.
go on. I DARE YOU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
WH. Take your finger, stick it between your butt cheeks. That is where you contracted yourself from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
ROFL. Oh, Harold Weird! You're such a ham!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
Only thing worse are idiot trolls...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comment
These attorneys are glorified bill collectors who can threaten and bully most folks into quick submission. They don't make money if they take the time to discover truth before action.
On StockArt's side, they are ripped-off hundreds of times a day and in no way could hire a team of attorneys big enough to police the extent of infringement against them. I am sure, from a dollars and cents perspective, the firm the contracted has done wonders retrieving settlements for them. And now they have to live with a public display of the damages done by turning a blind eye to the tactics used in their name.
I am just shocked that Jon wasn't given time to respond before clients were called. Or time wasn't taken to investigate who uploaded the doctored files of Jon's work. I hope StockArt takes this to heart and doesn't just blame this on the outside firm they hired. StockArt should take some responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't believe anyone would accept date stamps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can't believe anyone would accept date stamps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can't believe anyone would accept date stamps
If there is a date stamp on an item, and Joe Bloggs can come up and say "Yes that is my work, I did it on that date (pointing to the date stamp) and that date stamp is accurate" then that is accepted to be accurate. It would then require some other evidence to disprove the claims made by Joe Bloggs.
You do not have to 'prove' statements or documents produced are 'true'. If an individual can validate documentatoin then it is considered 'true' unless someone else can provide evidence to dispute said claim. That is why lawyers spend so much effort in discrediting wintnesses, as if a witness is discredited, it then allows judge/juries to have doubt about the evidence provided by that witness. Such as statements that the date stamp is accurate.
You must provide a reason why the date stamp my be invalid, a reason greater than 'anyone can change the date stamp with ease'. You need to be able to show that Joe Bloggs is an unreliable witness and he has the technical expertise to change the date stamps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing Pieces.
This constant jumping is annoying, doing nothing more than showing your cries for attention.
Please compare your replies in the AP vs Fairey discussion to the ones posted here.
Stop spreading your ignorant, hypocritical, rhetoric. Take your own damn advice when you tell someone else to "STFU".
Now, on topic:
The artist is wrong here, unless he contractually retained all copyrights of his works. He was hired for his skill, not his product.
Thus, any ownership of images belongs to the companies, who may have licensed the rights to distribute. Jon Engle is clearly in the wrong for hosting them on his, and other websites, unless he has permission to do so by the legal copyright owner.
If he thinks he can win the case against him alone simply on the fact he designed them, he's about to get a wake up call in life.
What I didn't see on his website were scanned images of his legal ownership of the logos or permission to display them, which would end all discussion in the matter.
Maybe if this artist realized true ownership, he wouldn't be whining like a baby now that someone's come to sue him.
On the flip side, if we're talking about original works he can display, then I do believe he'll have the information he needs to defend the attack, as most artists do retain a history of their work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing Pieces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missing Pieces.
And having read Engle's web blog, it's a safe presumption to have, especially given the lack of documentation to support his claims.
Or did you totally skip the subject line of "missing pieces", or to dumb it down for you, "there's information missing from this story to dictate a fair opinion on the matter regardless what side one favors".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing Pieces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missing Pieces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Missing Pieces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing Pieces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missing Pieces.
Did you read the information contained within the link you provided?
Given the article was written in 2003, the "crossed out section" is now part of most contracts to be signed by the artist.
Now, it's generally the other way around for artists to retain rights, often having agreed contract salaries reduced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing Pieces.
The artist is wrong here, unless he contractually retained all copyrights of his works. He was hired for his skill, not his product.
Errr, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire
there must be a written agreement in advance between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.
That agreement transfers the copyright. Without that agreement in place, the copyright is the authors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the artist in question is telling the truth, then the stock art site is clearly extorting money from him by asserting copyrights they don't actually have. Whether they paid someone in good faith for those images or took them themselves isn't particularly important for our purposes; somewhere along the way somebody broke the law, and everything thereafter on the site's side is tainted.
If the artist in question isn't telling the truth, then the above paragraph is inverted, and he's guilty of plagiarism.
Regardless of the artist's truthfulness, this case should be championed by the copyright maximalists, rather than the bulk of the Techdirt crowd. Why? Because stronger copyright protections mean whichever side really owns the copyright gets a stronger case. Of course, it also means that scare tactics against the artist's clients are more likely to be effective under a stronger copyright regime, but that just means more damages for the artist to claim (and likely receive) if he's correct.
Under a weaker copyright regime, the true copyrightholder's case would be weaker, but scare tactics against the artist's clients would also be weaker. Under anything that was substantially weaker, this would probably not be a worthwhile case for either side, regardless of who owns the copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Isn't that the ideal? The artist is contracted for work, does it, gets paid, the story ends. We never have to worry about someone bringing a legal stick to bear and cheating anyone out of money. Or does flooding the court system with frivolous cases somehow seem like a good idea? Even if such a case could be fought and won, it shouldn't have ever been brought in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hesitated to comment
For instance, contact this Jon, get links to a couple of his works at LogoPond and compare with the images at the stock art company?
Just because the person is "one of us", a weblogger, twitter user, whatever, doesn't necessarily mean he's in the right. Lawyers are typically pretty paranoid -- to contact clients directly, without being really sure of their facts just doesn't sound very lawyerly.
If he has been wrongly accused, then yes, I hope he does counter-sue, particularly as it relates to defamation of his character and harm to his business.
And this is a real good demonstration about adding meta data to your own works, including in the page containing the artwork and in the artwork, itself. A watermark wouldn't be a bad idea, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
write the stockart company an email
in sensible language, let them know what you think of their tactics.
the company is stockart.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Such a notice may very well turn this from a "woe is me" case to a "woe is you" case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A false or unsupported DMCA could take this from $18,000 to $150,000 pretty quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wasn't able to afford it, maybe? You know where he can get free legal representation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contact stockarts clients??
ADVERTISING AGENCIES :
DDB Needham
Bozell
Davis Ellen Advertising
Leo Burnett
Gotham
Grey
The Richards Group
Winkler
Temmerline McClain
Saatchi & Saatchi
Hill Holliday
Landor & Associates
The Bravo Group
WB Doner
Rapp Collins
McCann Erickson
Lowe McAdmas
Fogarty Kleine
Siegel & Gale
FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES:
Airtouch Cellular
Nortel
Anderson Consulting
IBM
UPS
FedEx
Merrill Lynch
USA Today
Continental Airlines
Hyatt
MCI
Netscape
Target
Toyota
AT&T
Fidelity Investments
Chase Manhattan Bank
CBS
Cigna Health Care
AND MANY MORE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like a scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WH the Amazing F*cktard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WH the Amazing F*cktard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wierd Harold are you even reading the same article
He has NOT been sued, therefore making the "laywers" contacting his clients and accusing him of copywrite infringment open for libel - they cannot make those accusations until they are actually suing or he has lost a suit in which he was alleged. Until then, it is called Libel - intentionally smearing him to assasinate his character and force his business to suffer - all before a suit has been brought up.
As of now, based on the article, this is just a bill collection agency trying to collect on a bill, which has very, very, very clear and concise laws of what can and cannot be done to collect that debt.
He really needs to issue a cease and decist order to the stock art site and turn this around. As well as reporting these most heinous of business practices to the attourney general both in his state as well as artlaws.com's state as well as filing a formal complaint with the bar association that has certified artlaws.com's credentials (btw, the "stockart site" is stockart.com perhaps one of the largest stockart sites in existance)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Automatically Believe Everything You Read...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some addition info
http://www.thelogofactory.com/logo_blog/index.php/stock-logos-copyright-twitter/
There were some other posts on various sites about this story that also seem to point to things being different.
They aren't hard to find.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear
After reading of your frivolous and unwarranted lawsuit against Jon Engle, please know that I will never use your site. I will also let all my designers/Consultants/Clients and Designer friend about corrupt, unethical practices .
Regards,
.......................................................
Today i received auto email response from owner of the company :
The matter of Jon Engle and Relevant Studio: Stockart is proud to represent the more than thirty artists who have provided Stockart with the artwork at issue over the past ten or more years.
Respectfully,
Richard E. Askew, Principal/Founder
Stockart.com
........................................................
Guys i think you shoud also protest best way is call Stockart Tollfree Number @ 1.800.297.7658
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IS JON ENGLE TELLING THE TRUTH? STOCKART POSTS DETAILS
I have been fighting for artists rights for over 11 years to the point where
it has devastated both my business and the livelihoods of my artist alliance
. I'm guessing we only license 1 image these days to every 50 which are
stolen and profited from. I personally have uncovered over 500 for- profit
companies whom have stolen over 8,000 images from my artists!!!! I can not
expose this story to the point which will soon be shared, but please know
one thing about this irony! I have fought this matter with my own personal
investments to a point of bankruptcy. I love my artists and their right to
earn money from their unique, artistic, intellectual property! If anyone is
interested in the entire story of my experience, please contact me
personally at accounts@stockart.com/.
I do want to personally thank you for your concern. I understand your
concern! Stockart.com is proud to advocate and represent the copyrights and
works of the many award-winning and talented artists who have provided their
work to Stockart.com for rights managed licensing for over a decade. The
works which are of concern to Stockart.com and Mr. Engle include, and are
not limited to, the works of:
Patricia Dalbey
Image #PD1P0138 (Stoplight Image)
Image #PD1A0213 (Chef Hat Image)
Image #PD1A0087 (Grape Image)
Phill Bliss
Image PB#2A0244 (Sun and Moon Image)
Cindy Lindgren
Image #CL1A0083 (Feather Image)
Image #CL1X0181 (Feather Pen Image)
Image #CL1A0102 (Peapod Image)
Image #CL1X0216 (Hand Image)
Scott Greer
Image #SG1A0094 (Shoe Image)
=0 A
Dave Winter
Image #DW0V0054 (Sombrero Image)
Larry Milam
Image #LM1A0041 (Rose Image)
Image #LM1A0043 (Mountain Image)
Image #LM1A0434 (Plate Image)
Mary Ross
Image #MR4P0041 (Star Image)
A 0
Rita Lascaro
Image #RL1A0061 (Rope Image)
Robert L. Prince
Image #RP0X0123 (Coffee Cup Image)
Peter Buttecali
Image #PB1A0004 (Rooster Image)
Image #PB1A0030 (Skunk Image)
Image #PB1A0034 (Lioness Image)
Image #PB1A0080 (Truck Image)
Image #PB1X0231 (Horse Image)
Image #PB1X0337 (Door Image)
Image #PB1X0346 (Building Image)
Image #PB1X0535 (Crown Image)
Image #PB1X0536 (Crown Image 2)
Image #PB1X0614 (Mountain Image)
Image #PB1X0714 (Mountain Image 2)
Michael Rowley
Image #MR1X0058 (Cow Image)
Image #MR1V0088 (King Image)
Image #MR1X0168 (Jester Image) 20
Image #MR1X0189 (Donkey Image)
Image #MR1V0219 (Jester Image- Color)
Image #MR10227 (Waiter Image)
Image #MR1X0257 (Cat and Dog Image)
Elizabeth Burrill
Image #EB1X0079 (Pig Image)
Paul Dolan
Image #PD0A0046 (Stork Image)
Image #PD0A0145 (Snake Image)
Stockart.com intends to use an appropriate "legal" forum to resolve
Stockart.com's concerns about the above and many other works; one which will
allow Stockart.com to explain why Stockart.com claims rights in the many
images which these artists have provided to Stockart.com, one which affords
dignity to the artists whose work Stockart.com represents; one which will
treat Mr. Engle with dignity and respect; one which will give Mr. Engle an
opportunity explain why he believes he has authorship or copyrights in the
many images with which Stockart.com is concerned.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Askew, Principal/Founder
Stockart.com, LLC
----- Original Message -----
From: Turquoise
To: support@stockart.com
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:33 PM
Subject: very unhappy about your treatment of Jon Engle
This story is all over the internet now. Designers are furious. Better do something quick.You need to fire that lawyer. He is ruining your company's reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JON ENGLE IS TELLING THE TRUTH.
But now big question is what happened to JON ENGLE & his website.
Any update guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Engle has been lying
People have searched the Wayback archive, and searched the sites of the other artists listed in Richard Askew's email. Many of the suspect pieces show up on those sites with dates that don't jibe with Engle's story.
Side-by-side comparisons of many of the art samples show widely varied illustration styles, and many have speculated that don't appear to come from a single source.
Most damning, though, is Engle's claim to have designed posters for various WB shows. As an employee of a WB (and now CW) affiliate, this was the part that really set off my BS detector, and I was right - those posters all appear to be the product of a company in LA, and can all be found on their website at www.bltomato.com. Engle is not mentioned as the designer of any of them. One of the actual designers of those posters has come forth and called Engle a flat-out liar.
Engle's website is not just down, but apparently wiped. He's also removed his "work" from many of the gallery sites around the web where he had profiles.
While his story was designed to tug at the heart-strings, I don't think it's anything more than a ruse to cover his butt, and one that's backfired on him completely.
He looks *very* guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some confusion
However, I have to object to some of the "proof" provided by the internet sleuths. The wayback archive search came up with a matching logo on stockart with a date of 2001. The internet sleuths compared this to the 2006 start date of the logopond website which Jon himself guessed the logos were "stolen" from. Jon also claimed on his blog that he began his design company in 2000, which means the creation date of the logo in question could have been prior to 2001, even if the logo was not uploaded to logopond until 2006. Comparing the upload date of the logo on stockart to the creation date of the logopond site only proves that the logo wasn't stolen from logopond. It is not solid proof that the logo was not stolen.
Remember it was Jon that guessed where the logos were stolen from. If he had not made that guess, there would have been no 2006 date to compare to. This is why lawyers tell people to be quiet. Anything you say really can be used against you. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All is not so clear cut
http://www.thelogofactory.com.nyud.net/logo_blog/index.php/stock-logos-copyright-twitter/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]