Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Copyright Infringement of Marilyn's photo

  1. #1
    Member kirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    La la Land
    Posts
    732

    Angry Copyright Infringement of Marilyn's photo

    To the guy who took my photo of Marilyn and used it for a chatline advertisement in the New Paper last week:

    Marilyn had complained about the advertisement to me.

    Under the Copyright Act, Chap 63, you have violated my copyright and further aggravated the matter by seeking to profit from the use of my photo.

    I am collecting copies of last week's New Paper to act as evidence against you.

    Once I have the evidence, I will commence legal proceedings against you. Be prepared to foot all the legal costs involved.

    I hold the RAW files which show I own the photos. This is one case you will surely lose

  2. #2
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    Dude, call up SPH, they should have a copy available.

  3. #3
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    actually, even if the court awards costs to the winning party, it is unlikely that the winning party can recover 100% of his costs.

    but this guy got balls, leech and use in news paper advertisement hehe - whack him good .

    Quote Originally Posted by kirk
    To the guy who took my photo of Marilyn and used it for a chatline advertisement in the New Paper last week:

    Marilyn had complained about the advertisement to me.

    Under the Copyright Act, Chap 63, you have violated my copyright and further aggravated the matter by seeking to profit from the use of my photo.

    I am collecting copies of last week's New Paper to act as evidence against you.

    Once I have the evidence, I will commence legal proceedings against you. Be prepared to foot all the legal costs involved.

    I hold the RAW files which show I own the photos. This is one case you will surely lose

  4. #4
    Member kirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    La la Land
    Posts
    732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by espn
    Dude, call up SPH, they should have a copy available.
    they have but the sph library is open only till 4pm on weekdays and 11am on saturdays. no time to go.

  5. #5

    Default

    Go kirk! This guy deserves what's coming - give him a good one.

  6. #6
    Member kirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    La la Land
    Posts
    732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    actually, even if the court awards costs to the winning party, it is unlikely that the winning party can recover 100% of his costs.

    but this guy got balls, leech and use in news paper advertisement hehe - whack him good .
    let's seek the advice of a infringement lawyer first. pity u dun specialise in this field.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Punggol Park
    Posts
    1,977

    Default

    Kirk

    way to go man

  8. #8

    Default

    even if the case is not as big in the law's eyes...

    it is a fundemental form of invasion of privacy.

    The case that orignaly sparked off the privacy issue, in 1890, is exactly the same. The use of someone's picture for the sake of material gain or profit in an advertistment.

    see. Robetson v someone lah cant rember, ssearch Warren and Brandeis they were the lawyer folk

    Even if you cannot sue for the invasion of privacy, as singapore does not recongize it, it should make the case stronger.

    anywae was reading up on this and happen to see ur post. i hope to help. no i'm not a lawyer.

  9. #9
    Moderator nightwolf75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    really MORE diaper changes
    Posts
    17,841
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    actually, even if the court awards costs to the winning party, it is unlikely that the winning party can recover 100% of his costs.

    but this guy got balls, leech and use in news paper advertisement hehe - whack him good .
    there are people who got balls, and then there are people who are just plain stupid... whoever leached kirk's comp card... dats plain stupid.
    If Life worked on auto mode then manual mode for photography would have never existed. ― Deeksha Mittal

  10. #10

    Default

    wah..... like that also can ar ?

    kirk... all the way....... lets see wat comes out of this...
    hope that guy gets what he deserves....

  11. #11
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    well, as you said it...

    Quote Originally Posted by moos blues
    Even if you cannot sue for the invasion of privacy, as singapore does not recongize it...

  12. #12
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    btw anyone has a copy of the ad? interested to see the extent of the use.

  13. #13
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    there was a case where a guy use a silhouette of a pro but retired model for a massage or escort agency ad, she sued him and won, this was in Singapore, quite recent, search the cases

    BTW not quite sure of the details, so do your research.

    All the way!

  14. #14
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    you are correct, if i remember correctly, its not a silhouette though, it was a direct photo reproduction. Damages for defamation was 30k and damages for copyright infringment assessed. there were aggravating factors in that case however which contributed to the amount awarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by ortega
    there was a case where a guy use a silhouette of a pro but retired model for a massage or escort agency ad, she sued him and won, this was in Singapore, quite recent, search the cases

    BTW not quite sure of the details, so do your research.

    All the way!

  15. #15
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    Kirk, let me know if you need lawyers, I got plenty to refer you to

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    you are correct, if i remember correctly, its not a silhouette though, it was a direct photo reproduction. Damages for defamation was 30k and damages for copyright infringment assessed. there were aggravating factors in that case however which contributed to the amount awarded.
    Ya ..... it was used in an Escort Agency, social escort kind .....

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    2,156

    Default

    my photos are never leeched bcos my photos are lousy

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Global Village
    Posts
    443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kirk
    To the guy who took my photo of Marilyn and used it for a chatline advertisement in the New Paper last week:

    Marilyn had complained about the advertisement to me.

    Under the Copyright Act, Chap 63, you have violated my copyright and further aggravated the matter by seeking to profit from the use of my photo.

    I am collecting copies of last week's New Paper to act as evidence against you.

    Once I have the evidence, I will commence legal proceedings against you. Be prepared to foot all the legal costs involved.

    I hold the RAW files which show I own the photos. This is one case you will surely lose
    Not to the extend of pouring cold water on you, but I'm interested to know the extend which you would go, on suing the guy. By merely engaging a lawyer, the cost will probably set you back, not to mention the time and effort into going for one.

    However, it would be good to know what can come out of this matter, so that all of us can learn from your episode.

    You or your lawyer will probably inform the company engaged in the chatline advertisement and give them min 3 days to remove the pictures. Chances are they will remove the pictures and I doubt you can ask for compensation of any kind.

    However, I did remembered that one opposition MP (lawyer-trained too) also got some kind of damage when one resturant used his photo to adventise his resturant. The MP sued him and I thought he got some sort of monetary compensation.
    Anyway, good luck.
    Last edited by eric69; 1st March 2005 at 01:43 PM.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    2,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eric69
    Not to the extend of pouring cold water on you, but I'm interested to know the extend which you would go, on suing the guy. By merely engaging a lawyer will probably set you back, not to mention the time and effort into going for one.

    However, it would be good to know what can come out of this matter, so that all of us can learn from your episode.

    Althernatively, you or your lawyer will inform the company engaged in the chatline advertisement and give them min 3 days to remove the pictures. Chances are they will remove the pictures.

    Anyway, good luck.
    if they remove the pic, what will happen? they escape any responsibiltieS?

  20. #20
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    the pictures were used in a newspaper ad, how to remove?
    Can ask them to stop using and pay damages.

    Get a lier... ooops lawyer that has experience in copyright issues.
    Maybe the one that streetdirectory.com hired to fight their case
    against companies that leeched maps off their website.

    FYI the company paid them $10K

    Contact a Virtual Map representative:
    For more information e-mail us at sales@virtual-map.com
    Last edited by ortega; 1st March 2005 at 01:47 PM. Reason: add email link

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •