Copyright infringement!

[mnhtnbb]

OMG. I just received a notice from Fine Art America--where I keep a gallery of photos for sale--but haven't added one in some time--that one of my photos had been removed because of copyright infringement!
What a joke. The photo was taken from the side of a public road in France of a well known winery --which shall remain nameless-- but which I identified in the description of the photo. A law firm in Kentucky was handling the complaint, which originated out of Sri Lanka! WTF? I looked up the law firm on line and it does exist.
I wrote the law firm back and basically told them it was pathetic that they were chasing down tourist amateur photographers for identifying a photo of a winery taken from a public road. Ah, well. Billable hours.
Undoubtedly, Mitch would be proud of them.
Anyway, I thought I would share the story. There are greedy, f'ing capitalists everywhere, worried they might lose a few bucks. Good grief.

[pat_k]

1. Things like this will get more and more frequent

. . . as the "legwork" is done by ever more sophisticated AI bots.

[George McGovern]

2. Good Grief Indeed and that's putting it mildly mnhtnbb!

[Diamond_Dog]

3. Holy cow that's unreal!

[usonian]

4. And they charged some client big $$ billable hours

for reading your response.
And ignoring it.
Lawyers and bookies make money, win or lose.

[Solly Mack]

5. That's messed up.

[Mousetoescamper]

6. There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces in the US

Last edited Tue Sep 10, 2024, 05:29 PM - Edit history (1)

and that would extend to anything in public view, including a well-known winery. Apparently there is such an expectation in France, and it extends beyond persons to properties.

Whatever was the legal argument used to remove your photo, it's petty and cynical.

I recently attended an outdoor art festival. While any painting displayed there was public, I asked the artists for their permission to take photos. Most were happy for my interest, but there were a few who objected. Their concern was that I would steal their art by taking a high-resolution photo and selling a print. That's what I get for using a fairly decent camera. When the new phones with onboard AI are commonplace, all of their users will be potential thieves.

[mnhtnbb]

7. I have some very nice photos

that I took in the Chihuly Museum and Gardens in Seattle. While they allow people to take photos, there are signs that advise photos may only be taken for personal use and may not be sold. I have turned three of those photos into art pieces that are hanging on the walls of my home but have never posted those photos anywhere they could be grabbed and used for commercial purposes.
There were no signs on the side of the road in France advising that photos taken from the road could not be used for commercial purposes.

[Mousetoescamper]

8. I want to note that

the photos of art I post here are low-resolution and not suitable for reproduction. Nothing we post here is high resolution.

The artists I spoke to said that on their sites they post low-resolution photos without watermarks. The gist is, nothing I've posted here is any better quality than what artists themselves post on their sites, unless they happen to be watermarking. I'll add that my local newspaper published online photos of art from that show, and they reach a lot more eyes than does DU.

Maybe there was an obscure French law that doesn't require posting warnings in order to be enforced. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" might apply. There are all kinds of regional proprietary laws in the European Union. To be labled Champagne the wine must come from or near the region of Champagne; in Italy, Parmigiano-Reggiano and Pecorino Romano come to mind.