Copyright Infringement of Marilyn's photo

[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

[espn]

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

[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 .

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

[kirk]

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.

[melnjes]

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

[kirk]

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.

[jeff49er]

Kirk

way to go man

[moos blues]

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.

[nightwolf75]

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.

[Will03]

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

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

[vince123123]

well, as you said it...

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

[vince123123]

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

[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!

[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.

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!

[espn]

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

[blurblock]

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 .....

[Paul_Yeo]

my photos are never leeched bcos my photos are lousy

[eric69]

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.

[Paul_Yeo]

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?

[ortega]

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