Designer Threatened With Copyright Infringement Claims… On His Own Work
from the hurray-for-copyright dept
A whole bunch of people have been submitting this story all weekend, about how designer Jon Engle is is accused of copyright infringement for his own designs. The site is down right now, but Google cache has it. Basically, the story is that a stock art site claims that it owns the copyright on 65 logos that this guy created for clients — and is demanding he pay $275 for each one (which is actually somewhat low, given what they could demand). He’s not sure how the images got on the stock art site, but it looks like someone just took the images of logos from a showcase site, removed the text, and uploaded the icons themselves. He explained this to them, but instead of an embarrassed apology:
When I refused to pay the bill they hired a law firm specializing in copyright infringement. The attorney called and offered a settlement of $18,000. How is that any different than the bill? I refuse to pay THEM for work I created. That is the epitomy of ridiculous. The attorney didn’t like my response. He threatened to sue. I say BRING IT ON! I have no doubt I can win in court.
So what did the lawyers do? They started going after all of Engle’s clients, telling them that their images infringe on its copyright and that Engle is “being investigated for copyright infringement.”
However, the new tactic I discovered this morning is so much harder to fight. They are calling or emailing every one of my clients they can find. They inform the client that I’m being investigated for copyright infringement and that the logo I designed for them may have been stolen from their client. After discovering my ban from Design Outpost I began contacting clients to see exactly who they’ve been in touch with. So far, I’ve heard back from three. In every case so far my client is furious with me. They took the lawyer’s warning at face value without bothering to contact me. I understand their reaction to an extent. I’m sure they’re worried that they may be sued as well for using ‘stolen’ artwork and the best thing they can do is distance themselves from me.
I feel like this is nothing more than an underhanded campaign meant to demoralize me and destroy my reputation. If you read through their website you can see they work on contingency. This means they don’t get paid if their client doesn’t get paid. I’ve also made it very clear there’s no way in hell that I’ll ever pay up. I’ll declare bankruptcy and go to work for McDonald’s before that happens. Are they thinking they can beat me into submission? Do they think I’ll agree to a settlement to make it all go away? Guess again. I have the truth on my side and I will NEVER pay a rip-off artist or their extortionist lawyers.
Nice to see copyright law “protecting” the artist again.
Filed Under: accusations, copyright, design, jon engle
Comments on “Designer Threatened With Copyright Infringement Claims… On His Own Work”
Nice to see copyright law “protecting” the artist again.
Here’s the rub: Because he didn’t take any time to protect his own work or really create an ongoing catalog of his work, but has taken the time to publish his work in all sorts of places, he left himself open for this.
Obviously the stock photo place’s lawyers are playing hardball, but they are doing what they need to do. Mr Engle doesn’t look like he really has a ton of proof that he created those logos, which leaves him in the lurch. While contacting his clients may seem rough, I think that this is their next logical step in the process (after all, the logos they are using are infringing, as far as they can tell.
I know it sucks, but this is where this gets a little weird:
He made the logos, he put them out there in public in digital form, and guess what? They became a sort of infinite good. Someone else picked them up, submitted them to a logo site as their own work, and no our artist has to prove he made the originals – with not much to work from, it seems. He has a bunch of scraps of information (according to his website) but really doesn’t have anything solid.
In reality, copyright is protecting the artist, the one who sold the logos to the stock photo place. If Mr Engel is the original artist (and there is no reason to doubt him), then he should have no problem producing proof. Without it, well, he screwed himself by not taking a short amount of time to document his work and properly retain records.
I have the truth on my side and I will NEVER pay a rip-off artist or their extortionist lawyers.
If he had the truth on his side, he should sue them back. But I think he lacks the documentation to prove his case.
Re: If he had the truth on his side
According to the quote in the article, the art is “the logo I designed for them”. If he is honest, he’ll have done the work under contract with payment from the client that can be audited (unless he’s a tax cheat in which case he might be screwed).
That, plus affidavits from some clients should be enough to establish the date that the image was created. So a lack of documentation isn’t a factor. The cost of the lawsuit might be interesting but he is suffering real damage from if the lawyers are lying, and contacting the clients would be intentional damage so he has a case for counter-suing for damages – and possibly even counter-suing the lawyers, not the website which might have no assets beyond his own art.
Or, he’s lying and blustering???
Re: Re:
No matter if your right or wrong Harold, everytime I see you post something you make my stomach feel ill.
Re: ...I know, don't feed the troll...
By publishing his material, he has by definition the copyright over it. No need for extra protection.
Re: Re:
copyright is protecting the artist
No. In this case, copyright is protecting the intellectual thief here.
What you’re saying basically amounts to “screw ’em, it’s his fault his work was plagiarized; he set himself up for it amirite?”
That doesn’t justify him getting sued for someone else’s underhanded scheme. Criticizing the guy for it is kind of a d*ck move.
They then prepared the bill and sent it to me. The good thing is that the bill gives me a record of every single image they took from me. That helps me gather dates, sketches, emails, etc to help me prove my case. The bad thing is that despite my explanations and proof, they will not let this go.
Wait, what was that thing you said about him not having a case? Oh, right. Hold the phone, here’s more:
Thankfully, I have a lot of incidental proof. I would never have thought to plan for something like this, but now I wish I had.
Oh man, I love WH’s skewed statements.
Re: Re: Re:
All he has to do is prove he created the logos.
For an artist, that should not be hard. If he has the proof, not only should he not be sued, but in fact he should be suing them for stealing his work (and passing it off as their own).
Once again, another Techdirt post where we are missing too much information to draw any conclusions, but enough for the usual suspects to get all huffy and indignant and call for the burning down of the copyright system.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree with you, sadly, that he left himself open to this by not better documenting his work and making them publicly available. Isn’t it enough if he can simply produce time stamped files of the logos that prove their originality? Copyright/IP law needs to evolve and creatives need to take the protection of their works more seriously. Seems unlikely that this designer will prevail.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Making the works publicly available. I believe this would not be allowed since he created the images under contract for his clients. They own the images once finished not the artist so legally he cant do that without permission.
I would counter sue have them pay all lawyer fees, court costs, lost wages, defamation, and for harassment.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That could be because you fail to follow links, as well as work on your reading comprehension.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, I’ll bite.
You create a logo using Illustrator. I copy your logo, and even trace it using Illustrator.
We both have the logo and we both have a vector copy of the logo. I can even set the “created” date on that file to be whatever I want.
Prove that you made the logo.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Well, just as one example on how I could prove it:
– I sent it to my client over email. I have a time-stamped email, my client has one, too. They sign an affadivit that they received it. They can show that it was used in their materials from a certain date.
– Although you can fake a created data, the data my client has on the original logo file is the same as I have.
The key here is that the orignial (real) artist is not the ONLY one to have the older, time-stamped files. So, too, do his clients.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
– I sent it to my client over email. I have a time-stamped email, my client has one, too.
Easily faked.
They sign an affadivit that they received it.
They could be lying. Maybe they are in collusion with you.
They can show that it was used in their materials from a certain date.
Unless it was an archived public publication or something like that it could still be faked.
– Although you can fake a created data, the data my client has on the original logo file is the same as I have.
File dates are easy to change. Even in a conspiracy.
The key here is that the orignial (real) artist is not the ONLY one to have the older, time-stamped files. So, too, do his clients.
I think I’ve shown how that isn’t necessarily true.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Just have to satisfy the court or a jury. My examples all would work towards that end.
Your argument that file-dates are not absolute 100% proof is correct. But irrelevant. My point isn’t about the veracity of the file dates, but that it becomes the word of many against the word of one. This wins cases.
Johnny-Q said he could fake dates, so how can you ever prove it. I said that you could prove it with corroborating witnesses. You argue back that “one can fake dates”. Thanks for adding to the discussion.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All he has to do is prove he created the logos.
That’s not true at all. Proving he created the logos is just the beginning. He also has to be able to hire expensive lawyers and engage in a potentially expensive legal battle with a well funded corporation. None of that is free and a lot of people just can’t afford justice in today’s corporate world.
Re: Re:
“If he had the truth on his side, he should sue them back. But I think he lacks the documentation to prove his case.”
From the site:
“Thankfully, I have a lot of incidental proof. … The logos on LogoPond have a date stamp showing when I uploaded them to the site. This is good, especially if the designs were stolen from my showcase. My submission date will always be earlier than theirs. Even if its only by a day, first is first. Kode ( @kodespark) suggested looking at the meta data in my source files. I didn’t know about meta data before today, but there are timestamps on the files as well. All of the meta timestamps pre-date my LogoPond submissions.”
Re: Re: Re:
If his “incidental proof” was solid proof, he would not only be able to tell them to go to hell, but also to sue them back (and likely win).
I am suspecting more that his incidental proof isn’t as solid as he wishes it was. Meta timestamps are easily changed, so likely not very solid evidence.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He actually can sue them back and win. This is one of the few cases where the DMCA will help someone. Since he actually can rightfully claim he’s the owner of the copyright and prove it in court, he can get the images taken down and he can sue for maximum penalties per download. Then once he’s got that wrapped up he can then sue them for libel/slander.
Hopefully he’s figured that part out at this point.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
What a fantastic use of this guy’s, and society’s, resources!
I know that as a small business owner and content creator, the potential to spend my time fighting bogus copyright infringement lawsuits is overwhelmingly appealing!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If his “incidental proof” was solid proof, he would not only be able to tell them to go to hell, but also to sue them back (and likely win).
Again Harold, I point out that not every has the financial resources for hiring lawyers that you and your corporate buddies do. That’s why you guys like to pick on the little guy who can’t fight back.
Re: Re:
Harold,
The issue here is not a legal battle over copyright infringement. It is extra-legal destruction of character and reputation, before anything has been discovered in court.
It actually doesn’t matter if the work is his or not. The end does not justify the means. If it’s a legal battle, fine, but leave the clients out of it: they will not be liable in any case.
You are continuously the spin doctor of bad copyright (is there good? I begin to wonder…). Try actually getting the point once.
Re: Re: Re:
Actually Mike, the problem is this: the clients may not have the rights to use that material, so yes, they need to be contacted. They are using work they may not have rights to.
If nothing else, contacting clients is a clear indication that the lawyers think they have a very good case.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, the contacting clients is a clear indication the lawyers are playing a heavy handed game of douchebaggery. Trying to intimidate him into simply settling out of court. As mentioned before, they are pro-bono and the amount their client is asking to settle is 18k. In the lawyers eyes, their firm stands to make a decent percentage of the settlement. A tidy profit after simply calling or emailing a few of Engle’s clients…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it is not. It is scare tactics and character assassination. It is underhanded tactics, and nothing else. Lawyers are not always advocates of the law. In fact, most of the time they are advocates of winning and getting paid, nothing more. They’ve overstepped their legal bounds on this one, as the clients have a right to continue using the marks they paid for UNTIL it is proven who created them.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If nothing else, contacting clients is a clear indication that the lawyers think they have a very good case.
It’s almost like you are taking over for dorpus…
That is as much an indication of them having a good case as Sun rising on the east and going down on the west is an indication of Earth being the center of the universe.
Re: Re:
What complete bollocks. That’s nothing but a pile of intellectually vapid sophistry from someone who wants to pretend they know how the world works. Being cynical is all very well, but if your answer to a bad lawsuit is more lawsuits, rather than pointing out the bad lawyers, then you are not on this earth to add value.
As far as the lawyers can tell, their client does not have a valid case. There is no basis for assuming that everything your client tells you is the truth, and everything the potential defendant says is false. They have no justification to harass the artist via his clients. They are outright lying to these firms to say that he is under investigation for copyright infringement, when he is under no such thing – being threatened with a lawsuit is not being investigated.
The next logical step is to find out the original source of the images, rather than throwing integrity out the window and trying to get settlement through intimidation.
Clearly you have no idea what morality means, because your thought process boils down to who has the power in the situation, and justifies actions based on pure monetary self-interest. But it’s the disregard for the importance of integrity in the legal process that is truly pathetic. A law firm should be expected to make the effort to establish facts before engaging in brute tactics to extort money from individuals.
Copyright
Please publicise the rip-off company name and URL and also their lawyers names. That is the only way to get your own back. This will go across the internet FAST and all of us will take action.
Re: Copyright
the company is stockart.com
it’s not a secret, he’s got a link to them.
write them an email!
Can someone help this guy?
Is there anyone, individual or organisation, that can help this guy? This is outrageous.
Um... Copyright is not causing the problems.
The copyright isn’t the problem here. Its the vehicle that is being used to justify strong armed tactics.
The trigger happy company that is chasing Jon up for the bill are the losers in this case. Whether there was such a thing as ‘copyright’ or not this company would still be going after people it considers to have used their products illegally.
Re: Um... Copyright is not causing the problems.
Omega:
You have it right. Does it really matter that the issue is copyright? People and companies have gone after others for “protection money” or whatever you would like to call it forever. If copyright was unavailable, they would choose another, just as legal (or illegal) path. Picking on copyright in this case is like picking on baseball bats when they are used to kill someone.
Too soft
He needs to counter-sue, inform any remaining clients before they do. Demand timestamps of downloaded images for his counter-case.
Re: Too soft
Fido:
You are absolutely correct. He needs to sue for misappropriation, defamation, and probably several other civil issues. Based only on what is available in the Techdirt post, he has a great case.
Why not DMCA take-down stockart.com?
This case isn’t really an indictment of the “copyright system”. It could have happened anyway. Jon Engle wouldn’t be sued for copyright infringement, but he could still be accused of copying all his work from others, which would damage his reputation even if it was not illegal. To me, this is akin to identity theft.
Whoever stole his work, apparently did it from logopond.com, so resolving this matter should be as simple as comparing the upload dates to logopond.com and stockart.com. This is perhaps the best evidence, as logopond is a third party and the designer could not fake upload dates there. He also should have the original source files with metadata showing date of creation, but that can be faked. The emails exchanged with the clients for which he made the logos are also powerful evidence.
If I was him, I would indeed consider suing stockart and it’s lawyers for defamation, loss of income, and of course copyright infringement. And I would immediately send DMCA take-down notices to stockart.com for all the logos. That would make stockart liable if they didn’t remove the logos, and might put them on the defensive for a change.
To me stockart and it’s lawyers are not acting in good faith, when they refuse to provide evidence like upload dates and go around contacting Engle’s clients. If Engle had indeed stolen those logos, he would be monstrously stupid to gather them all in a place like logopond, where he would risk exactly this kind of situation.
Re: Why not DMCA take-down stockart.com?
This was suggested on Slashdot and it will be the very first time I believe I’ve seen the DMCA actually used in a way that makes sense.
Re: Why not DMCA take-down stockart.com?
“That would make stockart liable if they didn’t remove the logos, and might put them on the defensive for a change.”
Also if they do remove them it would show probable guilt on the suing party since they can contest the DMCA and not remove the items if they are the right full owners.
Re: Re: Why is Stock art fighting this so hard?
Why is Stock art fighting this so hard?
It makes me wonder if they truly believed that they produced the work in house and someone on staff did this sort of borrowing quite frequently and just now got caught out by their own lawyers.
Re: Re: Re: Why is Stock art fighting this so hard?
Not to defend Stockart.com, and also without knowing all the facts, here’s a possible answer to your question:
Once you pass a case, or a collection over to a law firm or collection agency, you forget about it. It’s their job now. And since these agencies are paid a portion of the fees collected (often 50%) they pursue ruthlessly. That’s how they get paid. For some, being right matters less than getting paid.
Stockart may be totally oblivious to the whole deal. Of course, by now they will have been informed due to the uproar. Let’s see how they react.
Why not DMCA take-down stockart.com?
This case isn’t really an indictment of the “copyright system”. It could have happened anyway. Jon Engle wouldn’t be sued for copyright infringement, but he could still be accused of copying all his work from others, which would damage his reputation even if it was not illegal. To me, this is akin to identity theft.
Whoever stole his work, apparently did it from logopond.com, so resolving this matter should be as simple as comparing the upload dates to logopond.com and stockart.com. This is perhaps the best evidence, as logopond is a third party and the designer could not fake upload dates there. He also should have the original source files with metadata showing date of creation, but that can be faked. The emails exchanged with the clients for which he made the logos are also powerful evidence.
If I was him, I would indeed consider suing stockart and it’s lawyers for defamation, loss of income, and of course copyright infringement. And I would immediately send DMCA take-down notices to stockart.com for all the logos. That would make stockart liable if they didn’t remove the logos, and might put them on the defensive for a change.
To me stockart and it’s lawyers are not acting in good faith, when they refuse to provide evidence like upload dates and go around contacting Engle’s clients. If Engle had indeed stolen those logos, he would be monstrously stupid to gather them all in a place like logopond, where he would risk exactly this kind of situation.
The problem with WH's view...
…is that it presupposes, as immutable natural law, a reality in which every transaction, indeed, every action, requires the services of a lawyer. A sort of mirror reality wherein, if the artist’s act of creation failed register a ripple in the legal ether, his creation must be deemed to have never happened!
Right or wrong? Inapplicable!! Reality? To be determined at the bar! Justice? Justice is what the result of legal proceeding says it is!!
Only a lawyer rigorously trained in the slippery rationalizations of the guild could fail to see a problem with this.
Re: The problem with WH's view...
Actually, you don’t realize it, but pretty much everything you do every day requires the services of a lawyer. Almost every purchase you make comes with terms and conditions. “No returns without cash receipt” and “All sales are final” are just terms and conditions like anything else.
All that fine print is lawyer work. We just don’t have to pay the lawyers for every transaction, thankfully. But pretty much everything you do in the day is covered in one way or another.
if the artist’s act of creation failed register a ripple in the legal ether, his creation must be deemed to have never happened!
In this case, it’s a question of proving creation. Mr Engle cannot claim creation without proof, just because he says so isn’t exactly legally binging, especially as someone else has claimed and sold to the stock art place these logos, and that transaction certainly has a solid date on it. It is to Mr Engle to prove that he in fact created them.
Without proof, well, he has nothing.
Re: Re: The problem with WH's view...
And it was still said best by the Bard “First, Kill all the lawyers”…
Re: Re: The problem with WH's view...
If you need a lawyer to help you interpret what “no returns without cash receipt” or “all sales are final” means, then you have bigger problems.
Re: Re: Re: The problem with WH's view...
I don’t think Weird Harold was referring to the client in the transaction but to the vendor that has “no returns without cash receipt” or “all sales are final” on the receipts they issue. It is this vendor who hired the lawyers to draw up the terms and conditions on their sales contract, that is, the conditions on the receipts they issue to customers.
Re: Re: The problem with WH's view...
One would assume that since he sold his work to clients, he does, indeed, have proof of the creation.
Re: Re: The problem with WH's view...
It is to Mr Engle to prove that he in fact created them.
Why is it not up to stockart.com to prove that they own the copyrights?
Re: The problem with WH's view...
it presupposes, as immutable natural law, a reality in which every transaction, indeed, every action, requires the services of a lawyer. A sort of mirror reality wherein, if the artist’s act of creation failed register a ripple in the legal ether, his creation must be deemed to have never happened!
that’s a scary thought.
the idea that you need a lawyer to bless your idea before you can create or do anything is precisely what’s wrong with concept of intellectual property. this new requirement for due diligence BEFORE the creative process is going to really hurt the creative process.
the idea that all creativity and innovation require some sort of corporate and/or government authorization and that failure to obtain that authorization leads to some sort of punishment is positively orwellian.
i am surprised there isn’t some sort of doublespeak term for it, like createcrime:
“In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face…; was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime…”
the problem with that line of thinking is that it creates a notion that anything you do that might prevent an incumbent corporation (or the legal team of said corporation) from profiting is somehow criminal. i see that in the “that’s stealing!” meme that comes from posters here and from the corporations themselves when a new work or idea threatens what has already been established.
listen to anything except CD’s you purchased? “that’s STEALING music!” let’s call that earcrime.
read news and events anywhere but in the newspaper that you have paid to subscribe to? “that’s stealing news!” let’s call that readcrime.
watch anything except network tv with the commercials or DVD purchased at the full retail price? “that’s STEALING television!” let’s call that eyecrime.
use VOIP or your cell phone instead of purchasing a landline? “that’s STEALING phone service!” let’s call that phonecrime.
carpool with friends or take the bus instead of leasing a new car every two years? “that’s STEALING transportation!” let’s call that wheelcrime.
Re: Re: The problem with WH's view...
..and your entire post is a strawman crime.
Re: Re: Re: The problem with WH's view...
Says the Scarecrow, himself…
Haven’t the thieves opened themselves up for a big old libel case on top of everything else? This should pay enough of a contingency fee to cover the suit.
Weird Herald is off the reservation...
So… If I understand you correctly…
>Here’s the rub: Because he didn’t take any time to
>protect his own work or really create an ongoing catalog
>of his work, but has taken the time to publish his work
>in all sorts of places, he left himself open for this.
Ahh… so… by your definition, if one of the movie companies makes a DVD with encryption that is VERY easy to crack, and they then sell those DVDs ALL over the place… they just leave themselves open for someone to take the movie, remove the copyright and then republish the movie? Cool!
>He made the logos, he put them out there in public in
>digital form, and guess what?
So… because a band puts their music on a website in MP3 format, you’re saying that gives someone the right to take the music… copyright it… and then claim ownership? Huh?
>They became a sort of infinite good.
Much like music from a CD or movies from a DVD. They are all infinite goods. The CDs and DVDs aren’t… but the “digital form” is.
>In reality, copyright is protecting the artist, the one
>who sold the logos to the stock photo place.
Honestly… are you high? A moron? Or really just posting whatever the hell pops in your head so you can start arguments?
In the REAL reality, copyright is protecting someone who STOLE the work, and then SOLD STOLEN GOODS (infinite, mind you) to a company who then copyrighted the STOLEN goods and now use the law in their favor. That is the REAL reality… not your made up fantasy land where this is somehow right.
Seriously… are you on Techdirt’s payroll just to start arguments, because this one was pretty lame – and goes against things and views you’ve expressed previously.
Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
Welcome to “nice try, troll”. Geez. You lack even basic reading skills.
When I say “protect his work” I mean to document his production of said work product. Go once a year to a notary with a print out of each of your works and a series of discs with the original digital work (if it was done that way). Have the notary sign off on the whole pile as a witness. Guess what? You have now gone the full way to protect your work and show that you created it.
So… because a band puts their music on a website in MP3 format, you’re saying that gives someone the right to take the music… copyright it… and then claim ownership? Huh?
Actually, if it wasn’t so hard to disguise voices, I am sure that this would have already happened. It’s easier to say a computer created image is yours, rather than a song, only because the image itself doesn’t contain real proof.
n the REAL reality, copyright is protecting someone who STOLE the work
We don’t know that. We only have one side of the story. You are buying Mr Engel’s story outright, without hearing the other side. This is exactly what Mike wants you to do. Don’t question the information, don’t have any interest in hearing both sides of the story, let’s just damn the copyright system.
You are starting “REALITY” when it is at this point but one man’s word.
Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
Oooooh I see now. You’re Canadian. I dated a Canadian, I have nothing against your country or people. But I will say that since you are in a different country, please stop assuming you know and why ours is so screwed up (which it is) and making ridiculous suggestions which have no basis in American reality.
Re: Re: Re: USA USA USA USA
Brillian insight for a Xenophobe.
Dudes like Alexis de Tocqueville, Henry Kissenger, Madeleine Albright… Wish these douchebags would just stop meddling with the good ol’ USA. Surely they knew much less about the country than our Anonymous Coward directly above.
Yep, gotta be born here, live here all yer life, and never leave the country if you want to be able to comment about the USA. Nope, no valid insight could come from a ferner.
Re: Re: Re:2 USA USA USA USA
Yep, gotta be born here, live here all yer life, and never leave the country if you want to be able to comment about the USA. Nope, no valid insight could come from a ferner.
I don’t think that’s what he was implying, I’m sure decent insights into the workings of American law can come from people in other countries. Just not Canada. Go play hide and go fuck yourself you worthless canadians.
Re: Re: Re:2 USA USA USA USA
If you’re going to use your $100 word you may want to use it correctly. I never said I dislike Canada and America is #1 screw everyone else. As an aside and matter of fact I am WAY more pro Canadian than I am American (in the last 20 years, America has gone down hill).
My “xenophobic” comment above was simple telling WH that his BS comments are off base. Canada and USA are similar, but different enough that he shouldn’t go about playing lawyer in America. The fact that WH is a Canadian actually does help explain why his viewpoint is the way it is. My comment was not a xenophobic statement. Its more of a: “wake up WH, American law is slightly different!!” Canada regulations are different. It’s almost like WH doesnt know that our two countries legal systems dont follow the same rules…..
Lastly – Tocqueville, made a comparison of France and America, and was clear to spell out the differences. Not WH. Both Albright and Kissenger are American citizens and have been for over 50 years… So pleeeeease with your high horse Mr Kerton.
(owned)
Re: Re: Re:3 USA USA USA USA
Can you say “owned” at the bottom of your own argument?
And can you really “own” someone by re-writing history and then saying you were right?
Your original quote: “since you are in a different country, please stop assuming you know and why ours is so screwed up (which it is) and making ridiculous suggestions which have no basis in American reality.”
Agreed that if you change that (as you did) to “Canada and USA are similar, but different enough that he shouldn’t go about playing lawyer in America” your observation would be more correct, and you would not come off as intolerant of foreign thought.
However, instead of arguing based on what you wished you wrote, I went instead on what you actually DID write – which reeked of the xenophobia exhibited by the guy two above who dropped HIS $100 word “go fuck yourselves worthless Canadians.” You see, I know HE wrote that, not you, so I’m not indicting you for his ignorance. But with your original statement’s wording, HE is the company you keep.
Dude, watch your Ps and Qs. If it’s news to you that insulting a country full of people can get you flamed, you need some more sensitivity training.
Re: Re: Re:2 USA USA USA USA
Kerton: I now see why you randomly threw (up?)xenophobe. You’re partly based in Canada. Dont get all defensive. Read what was actually said.
Re: Re: Re:3 USA USA USA USA
I did read what was originally said…as opposed to the modified version you used to backpedal (at 1:50PM.)
Re: Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
…which have no basis in American reality.
Because America lives in a reality all of its own.
Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
and goes against things and views you’ve expressed previously.
He does that all the time.
There was one thread where he replied enough that he contradicted himself 3 times, in that thread alone!
His arguments are baseless, and trollful as they are easily debunked. And watch out for any examples you ever make. Chances are he has no reply for it and will simply say that it doesn’t apply. He will never point out why. Has no reason for it other than he has no argument. So he will simply say it doesn’t apply and move on.
Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
screw you. Seriously, screw you.
Show me where I contracted myself.
go on. I DARE YOU!
Re: Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
Show me where I contracted myself.
WH. Take your finger, stick it between your butt cheeks. That is where you contracted yourself from.
Re: Re: Re:2 Weird Herald is off the reservation...
Damn you beat me to it….
Re: Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
Show me where I contracted myself.
ROFL. Oh, Harold Weird! You’re such a ham!
Re: Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
Silly wabbit, you didn’t contract yourself, the RIAA did.
Re: Re: Re: Weird Herald is off the reservation...
Screw you guys. I’m taking my ball[s] and going home.
Re: Re: Re:2 Weird Herald is off the reservation...
Nothing like idiot impersonators.
Re: Re: Re:3 Weird Herald is off the reservation...
>Nothing like idiot impersonators
Only thing worse are idiot trolls…
Comment
Jon’s work is protected. StockArt knows exactly when files were uploaded/submitted and by whom. Unfortunately they use overly aggressive attorneys who are causing a lot of damage in their wake. And, unfortunately, Jon may have to hire an attorney so he gets adequate compensation for damages.
These attorneys are glorified bill collectors who can threaten and bully most folks into quick submission. They don’t make money if they take the time to discover truth before action.
On StockArt’s side, they are ripped-off hundreds of times a day and in no way could hire a team of attorneys big enough to police the extent of infringement against them. I am sure, from a dollars and cents perspective, the firm the contracted has done wonders retrieving settlements for them. And now they have to live with a public display of the damages done by turning a blind eye to the tactics used in their name.
I am just shocked that Jon wasn’t given time to respond before clients were called. Or time wasn’t taken to investigate who uploaded the doctored files of Jon’s work. I hope StockArt takes this to heart and doesn’t just blame this on the outside firm they hired. StockArt should take some responsibility.
I can't believe anyone would accept date stamps
I could build a computer with no internet connection, and set its date to anything the motherboard and operating system would accept. Having this wayback machine, I could load any digital image or other digital good and date stamp it. For a really good job, I’d also need a hex editor to search for previous dates to remove them, this isn’t rocket science.
Re: I can't believe anyone would accept date stamps
Yes, but most people who copy digital stuff are not tech savy enough or forward thinking enough to actually do that.
Re: I can't believe anyone would accept date stamps
I think you are misunderstanding how the law works.
If there is a date stamp on an item, and Joe Bloggs can come up and say “Yes that is my work, I did it on that date (pointing to the date stamp) and that date stamp is accurate” then that is accepted to be accurate. It would then require some other evidence to disprove the claims made by Joe Bloggs.
You do not have to ‘prove’ statements or documents produced are ‘true’. If an individual can validate documentatoin then it is considered ‘true’ unless someone else can provide evidence to dispute said claim. That is why lawyers spend so much effort in discrediting wintnesses, as if a witness is discredited, it then allows judge/juries to have doubt about the evidence provided by that witness. Such as statements that the date stamp is accurate.
You must provide a reason why the date stamp my be invalid, a reason greater than ‘anyone can change the date stamp with ease’. You need to be able to show that Joe Bloggs is an unreliable witness and he has the technical expertise to change the date stamps.
Missing Pieces.
Weird Harold, you’re an ignorant ass. Do us all a favor and stop posting. You can’t even pick what side of the fence you want to defend.
This constant jumping is annoying, doing nothing more than showing your cries for attention.
Please compare your replies in the AP vs Fairey discussion to the ones posted here.
Stop spreading your ignorant, hypocritical, rhetoric. Take your own damn advice when you tell someone else to “STFU”.
Now, on topic:
The artist is wrong here, unless he contractually retained all copyrights of his works. He was hired for his skill, not his product.
Thus, any ownership of images belongs to the companies, who may have licensed the rights to distribute. Jon Engle is clearly in the wrong for hosting them on his, and other websites, unless he has permission to do so by the legal copyright owner.
If he thinks he can win the case against him alone simply on the fact he designed them, he’s about to get a wake up call in life.
What I didn’t see on his website were scanned images of his legal ownership of the logos or permission to display them, which would end all discussion in the matter.
Maybe if this artist realized true ownership, he wouldn’t be whining like a baby now that someone’s come to sue him.
On the flip side, if we’re talking about original works he can display, then I do believe he’ll have the information he needs to defend the attack, as most artists do retain a history of their work.
Re: Missing Pieces.
Miles, you are presuming to know how the logos were developed, and how and under what conditions were sold. You don’t know, your entire post is speculative.
Re: Re: Missing Pieces.
Miles, you are presuming to know how the logos were developed, and how and under what conditions were sold. You don’t know, your entire post is speculative.
And having read Engle’s web blog, it’s a safe presumption to have, especially given the lack of documentation to support his claims.
Or did you totally skip the subject line of “missing pieces”, or to dumb it down for you, “there’s information missing from this story to dictate a fair opinion on the matter regardless what side one favors”.
Re: Missing Pieces.
Oh, and I forgot to mention what isn’t speculation… The fact that I molest little boys.
Re: Re: Missing Pieces.
Mike, there is an IP to block.
Re: Re: Re: Missing Pieces.
You see Mike? He’s even suggesting you block his IP himself! What more do you need?
Re: Missing Pieces.
Actually, the artist, the photographer, by default, all retain ownership of the copyright for art created for a client. Copyright transfer to the buyer has to be contractually stipulated and usually involves additional compensation. It is strongly suggested for identity work, but not implied in design-for-hire agreements.
http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/intellectual-property-what-does-work-for-hire-mean-for-designers
Re: Re: Missing Pieces.
Actually, the artist, the photographer, by default, all retain ownership of the copyright for art created for a client.
Did you read the information contained within the link you provided?
Given the article was written in 2003, the “crossed out section” is now part of most contracts to be signed by the artist.
Now, it’s generally the other way around for artists to retain rights, often having agreed contract salaries reduced.
Re: Missing Pieces.
Now, on topic:
The artist is wrong here, unless he contractually retained all copyrights of his works. He was hired for his skill, not his product.
Errr, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire
there must be a written agreement in advance between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.
That agreement transfers the copyright. Without that agreement in place, the copyright is the authors.
This one’s an odd choice for Techdirt. Sure, on the surface, it looks like yet another case of copyright abuse. But, on further consideration, it’s something entirely different.
If the artist in question is telling the truth, then the stock art site is clearly extorting money from him by asserting copyrights they don’t actually have. Whether they paid someone in good faith for those images or took them themselves isn’t particularly important for our purposes; somewhere along the way somebody broke the law, and everything thereafter on the site’s side is tainted.
If the artist in question isn’t telling the truth, then the above paragraph is inverted, and he’s guilty of plagiarism.
Regardless of the artist’s truthfulness, this case should be championed by the copyright maximalists, rather than the bulk of the Techdirt crowd. Why? Because stronger copyright protections mean whichever side really owns the copyright gets a stronger case. Of course, it also means that scare tactics against the artist’s clients are more likely to be effective under a stronger copyright regime, but that just means more damages for the artist to claim (and likely receive) if he’s correct.
Under a weaker copyright regime, the true copyrightholder’s case would be weaker, but scare tactics against the artist’s clients would also be weaker. Under anything that was substantially weaker, this would probably not be a worthwhile case for either side, regardless of who owns the copyright.
Re: Re:
,i>Under anything that was substantially weaker, this would probably not be a worthwhile case for either side, regardless of who owns the copyright.
Isn’t that the ideal? The artist is contracted for work, does it, gets paid, the story ends. We never have to worry about someone bringing a legal stick to bear and cheating anyone out of money. Or does flooding the court system with frivolous cases somehow seem like a good idea? Even if such a case could be fought and won, it shouldn’t have ever been brought in the first place.
I hesitated to comment
I hesitated to comment due to the ongoing says-you discussion, but I’m curious: did you do any checks to see if the person Jon is telling the truth?
For instance, contact this Jon, get links to a couple of his works at LogoPond and compare with the images at the stock art company?
Just because the person is “one of us”, a weblogger, twitter user, whatever, doesn’t necessarily mean he’s in the right. Lawyers are typically pretty paranoid — to contact clients directly, without being really sure of their facts just doesn’t sound very lawyerly.
If he has been wrongly accused, then yes, I hope he does counter-sue, particularly as it relates to defamation of his character and harm to his business.
And this is a real good demonstration about adding meta data to your own works, including in the page containing the artwork and in the artwork, itself. A watermark wouldn’t be a bad idea, either.
If he really owned the copyrights, wouldn’t he premtively sue, before he even made a speech about it?
Infringement?
Like Forrest Gump’s mom said – Stupid is as stupid does!
Wow I hope he gets this cleared up and then proced to sue all ten shades of hell out of the ones threatning him now.
write the stockart company an email
i did.
in sensible language, let them know what you think of their tactics.
the company is stockart.com
Assuming the individual is prepared to file a statement under oath that he is the original author of each of the various logos, the submission of a DMCA takedown notice to the service provider (i.e., the website hosting the logos for sale) is a good first start for gathering important information relevant to his situation.
Such a notice may very well turn this from a “woe is me” case to a “woe is you” case.
Re: Re:
If he could actually prove ownership to the level of sending a DMCA, he would have already sued back or stopped the process. He apparently wasn’t able to.
A false or unsupported DMCA could take this from $18,000 to $150,000 pretty quickly.
Re: Re: Re:
Not everybody thinks to do that automatically.
Re: Re: Re:
If he could actually prove ownership to the level of sending a DMCA, he would have already sued back or stopped the process. He apparently wasn’t able to.
Wasn’t able to afford it, maybe? You know where he can get free legal representation?
Contact stockarts clients??
OUR LIST OF CLIENTS INCLUDES:
ADVERTISING AGENCIES :
DDB Needham
Bozell
Davis Ellen Advertising
Leo Burnett
Gotham
Grey
The Richards Group
Winkler
Temmerline McClain
Saatchi & Saatchi
Hill Holliday
Landor & Associates
The Bravo Group
WB Doner
Rapp Collins
McCann Erickson
Lowe McAdmas
Fogarty Kleine
Siegel & Gale
FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES:
Airtouch Cellular
Nortel
Anderson Consulting
IBM
UPS
FedEx
Merrill Lynch
USA Today
Continental Airlines
Hyatt
MCI
Netscape
Target
Toyota
AT&T
Fidelity Investments
Chase Manhattan Bank
CBS
Cigna Health Care
AND MANY MORE
I knew a weird harold one time. I think he was a sex offender.
Re: Re:
Strange. I know a guy named Joe, and I think he was a lying sack of poop. Not sure.
Seems like a scam
WH the Amazing F*cktard
Well well well, you have finally done it. You have now proven beyond all doubt that you are a complete and total shill for your corporate masters. You can now no longer deny it. You now have nothing tangible or useful to offer to the conversation. You are discredited out of your own mouth, a mouth you speak out of both sides of, depending on which side serves your corporate masters’ purposes the most. You are proven as a complete and total tool.
Re: WH the Amazing F*cktard
…and your incredibly witty and well thought out post added so much to the discussion.
Find a nasty shyster to counter sue the other shysters for defamation of character. Find every shred of sketches, old psd files, etc and OFFER THEM a settlement of the same amount …plus one zero 😉
Wierd Harold are you even reading the same article
He HAS shown proof and the lawyers have repeatedly and consistently ignored his proof.
He has NOT been sued, therefore making the “laywers” contacting his clients and accusing him of copywrite infringment open for libel – they cannot make those accusations until they are actually suing or he has lost a suit in which he was alleged. Until then, it is called Libel – intentionally smearing him to assasinate his character and force his business to suffer – all before a suit has been brought up.
As of now, based on the article, this is just a bill collection agency trying to collect on a bill, which has very, very, very clear and concise laws of what can and cannot be done to collect that debt.
He really needs to issue a cease and decist order to the stock art site and turn this around. As well as reporting these most heinous of business practices to the attourney general both in his state as well as artlaws.com’s state as well as filing a formal complaint with the bar association that has certified artlaws.com’s credentials (btw, the “stockart site” is stockart.com perhaps one of the largest stockart sites in existance)
Don't Automatically Believe Everything You Read...
…especially on the internet. You’re simply taking Engle at his word without a lick of research. Peter Buttecali has way too much work to have stolen everything from Engle: are we supposed to believe that Buttecali is an unskilled chump who copied a handful of logos from Engle, but then got so good at the style that he was able to translate it into hundreds of additional clip art pieces? And Buttecali’s web site (Woodpile.com) and his body of work indicate that he is a far better designer that Engle. Engle’s logos have the look of clip art slapped onto type without a whole lot of thought. And why doesn’t Engle post visual examples on his web site to bolster his case? If I had to guess (which this purely is since nothing has been proven yet), I’d say Engle is guilty as charged and simply using a loudmouthed smear campaign to distract and deflect.
Some addition info
Here is another take on this story with some of the images in question posted. It also makes the whole thing seem a bit more questionable in general as to who did what to whom.
http://www.thelogofactory.com/logo_blog/index.php/stock-logos-copyright-twitter/
There were some other posts on various sites about this story that also seem to point to things being different.
They aren’t hard to find.
Yesterday night i emailed Stockart : support@stockart.com , accounts@stockart.com
Dear
After reading of your frivolous and unwarranted lawsuit against Jon Engle, please know that I will never use your site. I will also let all my designers/Consultants/Clients and Designer friend about corrupt, unethical practices .
Regards,
……………………………………………….
Today i received auto email response from owner of the company :
The matter of Jon Engle and Relevant Studio: Stockart is proud to represent the more than thirty artists who have provided Stockart with the artwork at issue over the past ten or more years.
Respectfully,
Richard E. Askew, Principal/Founder
Stockart.com
………………………………………………..
Guys i think you shoud also protest best way is call Stockart Tollfree Number @ 1.800.297.7658
IS JON ENGLE TELLING THE TRUTH? STOCKART POSTS DETAILS
Dear Respected Design Community,
I have been fighting for artists rights for over 11 years to the point where
it has devastated both my business and the livelihoods of my artist alliance
. I’m guessing we only license 1 image these days to every 50 which are
stolen and profited from. I personally have uncovered over 500 for- profit
companies whom have stolen over 8,000 images from my artists!!!! I can not
expose this story to the point which will soon be shared, but please know
one thing about this irony! I have fought this matter with my own personal
investments to a point of bankruptcy. I love my artists and their right to
earn money from their unique, artistic, intellectual property! If anyone is
interested in the entire story of my experience, please contact me
personally at accounts@stockart.com/.
I do want to personally thank you for your concern. I understand your
concern! Stockart.com is proud to advocate and represent the copyrights and
works of the many award-winning and talented artists who have provided their
work to Stockart.com for rights managed licensing for over a decade. The
works which are of concern to Stockart.com and Mr. Engle include, and are
not limited to, the works of:
Patricia Dalbey
Image #PD1P0138 (Stoplight Image)
Image #PD1A0213 (Chef Hat Image)
Image #PD1A0087 (Grape Image)
Phill Bliss
Image PB#2A0244 (Sun and Moon Image)
Cindy Lindgren
Image #CL1A0083 (Feather Image)
Image #CL1X0181 (Feather Pen Image)
Image #CL1A0102 (Peapod Image)
Image #CL1X0216 (Hand Image)
Scott Greer
Image #SG1A0094 (Shoe Image)
=0 A
Dave Winter
Image #DW0V0054 (Sombrero Image)
Larry Milam
Image #LM1A0041 (Rose Image)
Image #LM1A0043 (Mountain Image)
Image #LM1A0434 (Plate Image)
Mary Ross
Image #MR4P0041 (Star Image)
A 0
Rita Lascaro
Image #RL1A0061 (Rope Image)
Robert L. Prince
Image #RP0X0123 (Coffee Cup Image)
Peter Buttecali
Image #PB1A0004 (Rooster Image)
Image #PB1A0030 (Skunk Image)
Image #PB1A0034 (Lioness Image)
Image #PB1A0080 (Truck Image)
Image #PB1X0231 (Horse Image)
Image #PB1X0337 (Door Image)
Image #PB1X0346 (Building Image)
Image #PB1X0535 (Crown Image)
Image #PB1X0536 (Crown Image 2)
Image #PB1X0614 (Mountain Image)
Image #PB1X0714 (Mountain Image 2)
Michael Rowley
Image #MR1X0058 (Cow Image)
Image #MR1V0088 (King Image)
Image #MR1X0168 (Jester Image) 20
Image #MR1X0189 (Donkey Image)
Image #MR1V0219 (Jester Image- Color)
Image #MR10227 (Waiter Image)
Image #MR1X0257 (Cat and Dog Image)
Elizabeth Burrill
Image #EB1X0079 (Pig Image)
Paul Dolan
Image #PD0A0046 (Stork Image)
Image #PD0A0145 (Snake Image)
Stockart.com intends to use an appropriate “legal” forum to resolve
Stockart.com’s concerns about the above and many other works; one which will
allow Stockart.com to explain why Stockart.com claims rights in the many
images which these artists have provided to Stockart.com, one which affords
dignity to the artists whose work Stockart.com represents; one which will
treat Mr. Engle with dignity and respect; one which will give Mr. Engle an
opportunity explain why he believes he has authorship or copyrights in the
many images with which Stockart.com is concerned.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Askew, Principal/Founder
Stockart.com, LLC
—– Original Message —–
From: Turquoise
To: support@stockart.com
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:33 PM
Subject: very unhappy about your treatment of Jon Engle
This story is all over the internet now. Designers are furious. Better do something quick.You need to fire that lawyer. He is ruining your company’s reputation.
JON ENGLE IS TELLING THE TRUTH.
JON ENGLE IS TELLING THE TRUTH…. NOW WHEN STOCKART SAW WATER IS GOING ABOVE THR HEAD…. NOW THEY ARE GOING FOR IMAGE DAMAGE CONTROL …
But now big question is what happened to JON ENGLE & his website.
Any update guys?
Engle has been lying
Jon Engle has some serious issues with truth.
People have searched the Wayback archive, and searched the sites of the other artists listed in Richard Askew’s email. Many of the suspect pieces show up on those sites with dates that don’t jibe with Engle’s story.
Side-by-side comparisons of many of the art samples show widely varied illustration styles, and many have speculated that don’t appear to come from a single source.
Most damning, though, is Engle’s claim to have designed posters for various WB shows. As an employee of a WB (and now CW) affiliate, this was the part that really set off my BS detector, and I was right – those posters all appear to be the product of a company in LA, and can all be found on their website at http://www.bltomato.com. Engle is not mentioned as the designer of any of them. One of the actual designers of those posters has come forth and called Engle a flat-out liar.
Engle’s website is not just down, but apparently wiped. He’s also removed his “work” from many of the gallery sites around the web where he had profiles.
While his story was designed to tug at the heart-strings, I don’t think it’s anything more than a ruse to cover his butt, and one that’s backfired on him completely.
He looks *very* guilty.
Some confusion
I agree with those that say Jon appears to be guilty.
However, I have to object to some of the “proof” provided by the internet sleuths. The wayback archive search came up with a matching logo on stockart with a date of 2001. The internet sleuths compared this to the 2006 start date of the logopond website which Jon himself guessed the logos were “stolen” from. Jon also claimed on his blog that he began his design company in 2000, which means the creation date of the logo in question could have been prior to 2001, even if the logo was not uploaded to logopond until 2006. Comparing the upload date of the logo on stockart to the creation date of the logopond site only proves that the logo wasn’t stolen from logopond. It is not solid proof that the logo was not stolen.
Remember it was Jon that guessed where the logos were stolen from. If he had not made that guess, there would have been no 2006 date to compare to. This is why lawyers tell people to be quiet. Anything you say really can be used against you. 😉
All is not so clear cut
Just to follow up after this Internet storm, but it appears this story is not quite so clear cut against StockArt.com. Read the following for an update, and more from StockArt.com’s side of the story:
http://www.thelogofactory.com.nyud.net/logo_blog/index.php/stock-logos-copyright-twitter/
COUNTERSUE
countersue the bastards