Feb 9, 2010 at 12:03 am #1255026
I just checked out the Six Moon Designs community pages and found the following three images
I recognize them very well; I took them. As far as I know I have not given anyone the right to use these pictures, especially not for marketing purposes. More interesting, however, is that the last two pictures are from the Swedish mountains, not from Alaska. I guess Alaska sounds better from a marketing perspective, though.
The images seem to be taken from this thread:
An explanation would be interesting to hear; I've emailed Mr Moak about this thread.
EDIT: Link problemsFeb 9, 2010 at 12:12 am #1571480
@b-g-2-2Locale: Silicon Valley
I understand your point, and it would be interesting to know how the company treats your email.
In general, if they immediately take the photos down and then apologize to you, that should end it.
If they do not immediately take them down, then you offer the company a copyright license for XXX amount of cash.
If they still don't take them down, you offer them a lawsuit for 10 times the XXX amount. Pretty soon, they will come across, assuming that you have the raw photos in your possession and can prove ownership. Good luck.
There are some people out there who assume that any photo that they find on the web is fair game regardless of copyright notices or lack thereof.
–B.G.–Feb 9, 2010 at 12:16 am #1571482
Here are the three photos Johan referred to:Feb 9, 2010 at 12:24 am #1571483
This photo, found in the same SMD webpage, is mine — taken in Joshua Tree NP:Feb 9, 2010 at 12:33 am #1571484
If you post / upload a photo you took to a forum, do you really always still retain all rights to that posted photo's usage?
It's stupid that you're not at least being credited with the photo, and probably should have been asked first, too – but I'm not sure if this is outside of any "fair use" laws. Especially since the photos appear on the "community" site, which to me implies a kind of a forum itself. It seems more like "here's a collection of photos that people have posted online to forums (presumably, so others could see them!) of the tent in one place so it's easier to find."
Anyone have a better idea of how legally acceptable or not this is?Feb 9, 2010 at 12:37 am #1571485
My post has a different title. My photo isn't copyrighted. Ron is welcomed to use it. Would be nice if he had asked — but my guess is that he simply trawled the web to build his collection — and didn't necessarily know who all the owners were.Feb 9, 2010 at 12:59 am #1571488
There may be differences between Swedish and US law on this issue, but according to Swedish law I have the right to be named as the creator of the photos and they may not be used at all without my approval. The intellectual right always applies, the economic rights can be sold.Feb 9, 2010 at 1:02 am #1571489
Also, I've never been in Alaska. Actually, I've never (until now) stated where the pictures are from. Seems quite odd to claim that these pictures were from Alaska.
If anyoune's up to paying for it, I'd happily go there and take some pics though.
EDIT: I just noticed that it in the original forum thread actually is stated where the pictures are from.Feb 9, 2010 at 1:18 am #1571491
@martinnLocale: Gotland, Sweden
It's a very strange way to behave, considering that Johan – obviously – is one of Ron's customers.
Not only did he (supposedly) infringe on Johans intellectual property, he made up a story about were the pictures are taken.
I wouldn't call it fair use.Feb 9, 2010 at 1:48 am #1571495
@bleanLocale: San Jose -- too far from Sierras
> There may be differences between Swedish and US law on this issue,
Just idle curiosity — in a case like this, I wonder what law pertains?
— BobFeb 9, 2010 at 2:22 am #1571501
FYI This would fall under the:
If you are offended by them infinging on your property feel free to send them a:
If they do not respond within a given ammount of time contact their host citing:
Make sure to document everything with screen captures and if the host doesn't remove the site you can feel free to hold them liable for damages.
EnjoyFeb 9, 2010 at 4:26 am #1571507
All photos in the US are automatically copyrighted as soon as you take the photo. But, unless they are registered with the Library of Congress, you cannot seek damages.
You do not forfeit your copyright over images by releasing them on the web. You can license them under a creative commons or similar license, but you still retain the copyright. You would only lose copyright if you were doing work as an employee.
Fair use doesn't seem to imply here. It isn't for educational or editorial purposes.Feb 9, 2010 at 6:17 am #1571528
Better to have just emailed Ron and handled it privately than raise heck on a message board.Feb 9, 2010 at 6:23 am #1571530
I've always been very happy in my dealings with 6 moons- Ron seems like a very reasonable man. Why contact Ron about the thread rather than just contacting Ron straight away?Feb 9, 2010 at 7:21 am #1571542
Johan's Photos have been removed from our Community Pages within 10 minutes of me reading the email.
There has been no intention on my part to deceive anyone. The photos posted come from ones we've taken, users have submitted or that we found posted elsewhere on the web. I have attempted to contact people on the web, sometimes successfully and other time not so.
The labeling of the photo as having been taken in Alaska was also a mistake. I had several photos with similar backgrounds that were taken in Alaska along with Johans. I simply chose that photo and misapplied the origin.
If people want to submit photos of their gear in action, we're more than happy to oblige. Likewise if there are other photos that people would like to see removed that also fine.
I would note that for people who put photos on the web, you can take advantage of the image property details that accompany every photo. If you right click the photo (PC) and select properties you'll see a details tab. Inside of this tab you can include detail information about the photo including Author, Subject, Copyright, Owner, Comments, etc. This is an excellent place embed photo details that will automatically travel with the photo whenever it is copied or moved. It'll also make it much easier for people to contact you if you include an email address.
Six Moon DesignsFeb 9, 2010 at 7:43 am #1571545
@b-g-2-2Locale: Silicon Valley
"I have attempted to contact people on the web, sometimes successfully and other time not so."
Then obviously you are unfamiliar with copyright law, sir.
You didn't have permission, and you just admitted it.
The lack of negative permission means nothing.
That means I guess I won't buy anything from SMD.
–B.G.–Feb 9, 2010 at 7:51 am #1571551
Ron did say "mea culpa". Sometimes, people transgress the laws. While not knowing is not an excuse, Ron did take down the pics ASAP. Methinks taking swift corrective action once made aware is a good thing.Feb 9, 2010 at 7:52 am #1571552
Ah yes, the litigious USA. He apologized and took the pics off the site. You make him sound like Bob Molen.Feb 9, 2010 at 7:55 am #1571554
@joshleavittLocale: Ruta Locura
A little different perspective. As a manufacture, one of the hardest things to do for your customers, can some times be getting them good information. I have no doubt that Ron posted these pictures in the spirit of "customer service". How many times have we seen threads where people want to see better pictures of gear, and/or other angles. IMHO, having met and spoken with Ron before, I believe he was trying to do nothing more than provide the service of good information. Lets cut him a little slack, he has owned up and "correct" the "situation".Feb 9, 2010 at 7:58 am #1571556
…makes me want to run screaming into the woods and never come back.
"He used my picture. My rights have been violated. Wah."
Get real.Feb 9, 2010 at 7:59 am #1571557
If Ron has what I need, I will buy it.
I am happy that his focus is on gear. His history and reputation are far larger than this honest mistake.Feb 9, 2010 at 8:04 am #1571559
@sprucegooseLocale: New England
>>That means I guess I won't buy anything from SMD.<<
340 posts in one month. How do you have time to actually use hiking gear?
I'm guessing that Ron will continue to produce great UL gear, and that many of us will continue to purchase said gear.Feb 9, 2010 at 8:13 am #1571564
>Ah yes, the litigious USA.
+1. We're so quick to defend and iterate what's MINE MINE MINE!
Whatever. Personally I could care less. If Ron were using the picture for direct profit, then MAYBE I'd take an issue with it–as in, he passed it off as his shot and is now selling posters of that picture. Not the case. If I post something online, without explicitly stating my copyright intentions then I forfeit my rights. I know that's not how the law is written, but we all know the workings of the internet. If I want to protect something, I don't put it on the internet, OR I do a darn good job of copyrighting it.
As it is, we all know it's hard to get a real perspective on cottage manufacturer's products simply because we can't go to REI and look at one. So, pictures are some of the best things we have to help us decide.
I'm in the camp that it was in the name of customer service, and nothing else.Feb 9, 2010 at 8:15 am #1571567
Bob Gross might consider going decaff. Ron acknowledged, Ron removed, Ron apologized.Feb 9, 2010 at 8:20 am #1571569
I would be honored if a cottage manufacturer used one of my photos of their gear in action.
I have a friend that is attempting to break into the media business, and has Trademarks and Copyrights slapped all over his photos…even his personal social networking site (Facebook) photos. It's not like anyone really cares or he will ever be "famous".
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.