"gmporschenut also a fan of hondas" (gmporschenut)
05/08/2020 at 11:25 • Filed to: None
0
19|
"gmporschenut also a fan of hondas" (gmporschenut)
05/08/2020 at 11:25 • Filed to: None | 0
| 19 |
Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo
> gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
05/08/2020 at 11:55 |
|
Is there a text version or tl;dr for those of us who don’t video?
Edit: Nevermind! Found it.
tl;dr they downloaded some dude’s art, took out his logo, and used the art on a bunch of shit. Turns out that is a bad idea and not a nice thing to do.
ttyymmnn
> Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo
05/08/2020 at 11:55 |
|
This. The less I have to look at these idiots the better.
TheRealBicycleBuck
> gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
05/08/2020 at 12:11 |
|
I t all goes back to who paid for the pictures in the first place. If the Te ut el s paid for the photographer to take the photos in the first place, the photographer received just compensation for his work and the copyright should be nullified. If they failed to sign a “work-for-hire” contract, it still could be challenged in court.
From The Essential Guide to Photography :
“A Work-for-Hire relationship is created in two situations:
The photographer is an employee hired to take photographs for an employer. A photojournalist employed by a newspaper is an example of Work-for-Hire. However, a wedding or portrait photographer hired for one specific event is not Work-for-Hire. The photographer is hired and signs a written contract that specifically states that the work is to be considered Work-for-Hire.
The Work-for-Hire agreement will relinquish any rights the photographer has to the work created for the client. So make sure you know what you’re getting yourself into before signing on that dotted line.”
The court challenge would be two part: first, whether or not there was a contract; second, whether or not the photographer was paid for the work. If there was no contract and the photographer was paid, the assumption would be a work -for-hire relationship and the copyright could be challenged. If there was a contract which contained language that established copyright, the copyright might still be challenged if the contract was long, the language was buried, and inadequate time was given to review the contract. Think software license agreement.
I think the Teutels might still have an opportunity to vacate the judgement.
|
TheRealBicycleBuck
> Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo
05/08/2020 at 12:28 |
|
Not so fast! The art in question is a series of photographs. What’s not clear is whether or not the Teutels paid the photographer which, depending on the contract stipulations, determines whether or not the copyright filed by the photographer can be invalidated. What is clear is that these weren’t random on-the-street kinds of photos. They are staged photos like you would get if you hired a photographer to take photos. If they paid the photographer, he may not have a valid claim for copyright.
|
TheRealBicycleBuck
> ttyymmnn
05/08/2020 at 12:29 |
|
While I agree that these guys are (rich) idiots, the copyright claim isn’t clear cut.
ranwhenparked
> gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
05/08/2020 at 12:50 |
|
Today I learned that the Teutels were still around. Seriously, the only place I expected to hear their names again was maybe as a line of dialogue in Better Call Saul or something, given the era.
|
Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo
> TheRealBicycleBuck
05/08/2020 at 13:24 |
|
Ahh thanks for the clarification. I guess it would all come down to the contact or agreement they signed before the shoot... which they almost certainly didn’t have. That does make things more complicated, but based on the video title I assume the Chopper people didn’t bother to show up to court?
|
TheRealBicycleBuck
> Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo
05/08/2020 at 13:31 |
|
They didn’t bother to show up to court to defend themselves. If they had, they probably would have won, given the disposition of the judge. I found the photographer. He is primarily a wedding photographer and has this on his site (emphasis mine) :
“ Wedding coverage starts at $3400 and includes full ownership to all high resolution images . All images are color corrected and edited and delivered within 2 weeks from wedding date.”
If I were the Teutuls and didn’t have a contract with the photographer, I would immediately submit this to the copyright office to invalidate his claim.
|
Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo
> TheRealBicycleBuck
05/08/2020 at 13:33 |
|
Fair, though a commercial shoot vs a wedding? Hmm.
Also damn apparently I’m undercharging! I did a wedding for a bottle of whiskey once... and I ended up having to be the witness on the marriage licence!
|
gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
> TheRealBicycleBuck
05/08/2020 at 13:36 |
|
I agree with that if they had a contract, if so, why wouldn’t they do that on 3 sepa rate occasions?
DipodomysDeserti
> TheRealBicycleBuck
05/08/2020 at 13:40 |
|
My wife is a professional photographer (one of her many side hustles), and she has a variety of contracts she has clients sign relinquishing certain rights depending on the situation. None of her contracts allow clients to publish photos carte blanche. Photographers and artists are generally very keen on things like this.
Even in the case of work for hire, the copyright generally goes to the employer, not whoever pulls it off the internet.
|
TheRealBicycleBuck
> Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo
05/08/2020 at 13:41 |
|
If you’re doing it for money, it’s probably a good idea to set up a contract that clearly establishes ownership and liability i f things go wrong.
Our wedding photographer held the digital images hostage and we ended up shelling out another $600 for them. I should have read the contract.
Another photographer lost our images after we paid her for the session. Years later, she found them. Since we never received any photos, she gave us all of the digital files and a couple of free prints to make up for it.
|
TheRealBicycleBuck
> gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
05/08/2020 at 13:45 |
|
That is an excellent question. I can’t find anything about why they didn’t show up in court. Most people assume that if they pay for photos, the photos belong to them, not the photographer. I wonder if they thought (or were advised) that the case would be thrown out.
I looked at the Copyright application. There’s a place where the photographer must indicate if the work was for hire. If it was, then this fellow lied on the application. Whether it was or wasn’t, there’s nothing on the application that notifies the subject of the photograph that someone is making a copyright claim. The Teutuls may not have known or may not have believed that the photos had been copyrighted.
|
TheRealBicycleBuck
> DipodomysDeserti
05/08/2020 at 13:50 |
|
I’m glad to read something from someone with a little insight. It sounds like your wife is on top of her business.
I can’t find anything about the contract other than the photographer’s website saying that when he does wedding photos, the couple own all of the digital files.
The copyright office has a spot on the application to indicate whether or not the work was for hire. Either their contract specified that the photographer owned the photos, the photographer illegally claimed the photos, or they weren’t done for hire.
|
DipodomysDeserti
> TheRealBicycleBuck
05/08/2020 at 14:29 |
|
Yeah, she’s owned her own businesses since high school, all revolving around her artwork.
She would never put that on her website. She gets paid, then has the client sign her contract, listing what they can use the photos for, then takes the photos. She would never relinquish a copyright for a wedding. Weddings generally don’t even fall under the “work for hire” category as it’s just a single event. The work for hire is mostly for companies to have ownership of photos, whether they’re taken by an employee of contractor.
There are still photographers that charge for individual photos, with a lower session cost. They call it “in person sales”. My wife just did a friends wedding. She did the session for free, but put the photos on a site that people can buy the photos from. She gets paid for every photo ordered and the site gets a cut. Had an issue a few years ago when a friend’s sister sent my wife’s photos from a wedding to a newspaper and they published them. My wife was peeved, but it wasn’t worth bringing up on account of her friendship.
Back in the day photographers wouldn’t even give you the film, amd legit places wouldn’t copy pictures unless they had a release. Digital changed everything, mostly because it made it easier to steal stuff.
|
TheRealBicycleBuck
> DipodomysDeserti
05/08/2020 at 15:03 |
|
Your response led me down the photography copyright rabbit hole and I learned a few things today. Thanks!
https://www.asmp.org/legal/works-hire-not-get-bitten/
haveacarortwoorthree2
> gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
05/08/2020 at 15:40 |
|
The article someone else posted says the old guys has filed bankruptcy. In that instance, this copyright lawsuit should be subject to the automatic stay and it cannot be pursued - the photographer’s claim would have to be filed as part of the bankruptcy proceedings and this judgment is worthless. (At least I think so as a non-bankruptcy lawyer. lol)
|
gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
> haveacarortwoorthree2
05/08/2020 at 15:42 |
|
Maybe that’s why he focused on the son? Idk
|
gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
> ranwhenparked
05/08/2020 at 21:33 |
|
yeah I stopp ed paying attention mid 2000s when they stopped making most of the parts on the bikes.