$60,000 for our stolen photo: We made a copyright thief PAY!

Sign up for your FREE trial to The Great Courses Plus here: ow.ly/7atf30k3oOv
The Great Courses Plus is currently available to watch through a web browser to almost anyone in the world and optimized for the US, UK and Australian market. The Great Courses Plus is currently working to both optimize the product globally and accept credit card payments globally.
Two years ago a company used one of our most well-known photos on the cover of an iPhone case without our permission. This was misleading in a couple of ways; the product seemed to advertise that it could produce the results in our picture (it couldn't) and some people assumed we were endorsing the product. The product was in some of the biggest stores in Australia and New Zealand, including Target, and selling for about $70 AUD.
We tried to reach out and handle it nicely without getting lawyers involved, but the people who stole our photo immediately lawyered-up and tried to ignore us.
So we sued them. That wasn't easy! We had to hire lawyers in Australia, and finding an attorney was REALLY HARD. The defendants tried to get off without paying a fair amount... but in the end, it cost them a lot.
How much did we get? We'll show you our bank statement. Don't forget to subscribe to the Picture This Photography Podcast in your favorite podcasting app.

[@TonyAndChelsea]

See the photo they stole from our book cover: northrup.photo/?product=lr

[@asi7058]

the audience is so awesome that you had to plug a sponsor to make money off of us. the very least would have been an ad free video,

[@dhowser2008]

I am glad it worked out for you!

[@larrymashburn7789]

Did you guys get permission to use the photo from Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul? Lol, jk. Glad you got it cleared up.

[@accutus]

if they just responded with an excuse me note and an offer, for how much would you have settled in the first place?

[@BrettFlashnick]

So did you license the still from Breaking Bad you used in your "prezo" that was on screen for several minutes? If not you're being hypocritical.

[@paulinefollett3099]

99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

[@danm2368]

Pauline Follett Fvck Australia, JK, I want to go there.

[@indykurt]

Pauline, I think the number is higher getting into the decimal point the rounding to the nearest percent takes it to 100%

[@jackchow4316]

Well said

[@Screenwriting]

LOL. true dat!

[@digitaldazzle5836]

Pauline Follett... Hahahaha!!! Damn that’s funny!

[@tokenride04]

I wouldnt say everyone left unhappy. the lawyers were probably loving it

[@Athaeus]

You've gotta hand it to them for picking a profession where you win even when you lose.

[@CalicoArchives]

It sounds like lawyers make more money when things are going wrong all the way up to the point of societal collapse and all out war.

[@MattOGormanSmith]

www.quora.com/Who-were-the-defense-lawyers-at-the-Nuremberg-trials Way past *that* point .

[@amariiah]

Haha! Yea!

[@thefozzybear]

I wish my photography was good enough for someone to want to steal my photos.

[@davefoc]

I feel the same way. Mostly I almost give my stuff away although technically my stuff on occasion is stolen by somebody that doesn't credit me which is the only condition on the use of most of my stuff. A few times when somebody in a larger organization wants to use something of mine t they contact me and I give them an emailed approval. But I saw one of my pictures used in a science type video by a big organization and they just outright stole it. I would have thought it was totally cool if they'd written me and told me that they were going to use it. But they just stole it. I thought about writing them, but mostly I was just happy to see my stuff end up on a professional video.

[@juanduenas1943]

I can steal some of your photography if you want? XD

[@Lion_Hamza]

@@juanduenas1943 No please steal mine 😀

[@MikeBrowne]

Congratulations guys. These things are so slow and painful. Years ago someone ripped off my entire wedding photography website. Photo galleries, text, prices and layout too. They blamed their designers too! It took months to sort out and so much of my time. I think I ended up with about £1500 after costs etc... That was tiny compared to what you guys just dealt with so big high five for sticking with the stress. And like you said, all they needed to do was apologise and ask how we could sort out some arrangement. Thanks for sharing this with everyone and big respect for your followers who kept you informed... MIKE

[@VlogCreations]

Thank you for standing up against the injustice. It costs you a lot, I'm sure, but you're standing up for every creator in the world. If people know giving credit is a big deal, they will give credit or not use others content. People post my videos and pics of my videos all the time. It is the most frustrating thing because they rarely tag me to AT LEAST help me get more followers.

[@WestVirginiaWildlife]

Hey. It's odd your comment has only one like and no replies when you're a big youtuber haha.

[@JanneRanta]

Tony going full James Bond villain with the puppy. Just needs a hidden lair and diabolical plan.

[@AdamCraigOutdoors]

tony always has a plan!! lol

[@someguyfromsomewhere]

And sharks with lasers!

[@matthewviens545]

Already has the lair!

[@luiskp7173]

More like Dr Evil.

[@GustavoMendozaCanales]

those are his lawyers!

[@bpegadgets]

I’m pretty much a nobody photographer but I have one particular panorama image of Nashville that pretty much went viral and almost everyone who was using it was without permission. I found a law firm out of California (Higbee & Associates) who doesn’t charge up front, they work on a contingency basis so you only pay a percentage of what they collect for you. They have settled $11,600 for me in the last 3-4 months and are still actively working 10 other cases for me. One company wouldn’t settle so they have started process to file in Federal Court. This is for a willful copyright infringement which by law could be up to $150,000 per image per use. The company used it on Facebook and their website. Tell them you heard about them from me. They will actually search your images for copyright infringement for you too so you don’t have to do anything.

[@timkeepers3325]

Yeah...11.5k but their fees are 10k

[@bpegadgets]

Tim Keepers Actually 40% and I didn’t pay a dime up front.

[@MichaelJustinStudiosNY]

can you name the firm? I'd like to reach out b/c i'm dealing with something similar!

[@bpegadgets]

Michael Justin Studios Yes, Higbee & Associates. Please tell them I referred you.

[@SebastianoTreba]

A photo is a form of artistic expression, and the creator should be payed for its use, especially if it's used by a company. You're obviously trolling or incredibly dumb. Either way, wrong place to piss photographers off

[@lawfulmasses]

Hey, I'm super impressed that you fought the good fight and even more impressed that you won. Much deserved. Great job!

[@andrewpatton6194]

haha leonard french is the man!

[@Lumencraft-]

Big thumbs up for putting the important parts of the story on the FRONT END of a 26+ minute video. It makes me feel like your videos are worth clicking on even if I don't have time or interest in the whole thing! Thanks!

[@rongerris8829]

So the lesson learned hear: don't be a photographer but become a lawyer :-)

[@TonyAndChelsea]

😀

[@empera1972]

Ron Gerris 😂😂😂😂

[@Onyeubanatu]

OMG My chest! LOOL!!!

[@VBerg19]

or be both :)

[@scoobyrex247]

Become a lawyer plus part time photographer.

[@SuperSaf]

Thanks for the video and insight. Just last week I was made aware that my face is on an ad on buses in Brazil lol. I didn't really think much of it and after hearing about your experience with lawyers I doubt I'd try taking any action 😂

[@gunzlingerbil]

SuperSaf TV hahaha dang.

[@MehmetKozal]

I can totally imagine your face also on a lot of barber shops :) I bet this happened :)

[@4bytesuserpage]

your face is also there in a local coffee shop here

[@Karthig1987]

You made it in life? lol. Wonder what the ad is about

[@karographixphotography7811]

SuperSaf TV but... you should go Brazil and take benefit of stardom!

[@sasheendowlath5245]

Hey! I tweeted you about this from New Zealand too! Glad it was resolved! EDIT: just saw my Tweet!

[@TonyAndChelsea]

Thanks for your help with it!

[@davidorr6627]

Hey, where did you see it? I'd better get down there and buy one before they're all removed. I haven't even got an iPhone, but this could be a future collector's item.

[@sasheendowlath5245]

XD This was at Cello Technology hub in Dunedin

[@AllgoodthingsTv]

I liked this video, but as someone who works in the legal field I wish you had talked more about statutory damages pursuant to copyright law in the US and why it's important to register your work. Also, how the Berne Convention might apply in this situation and whether the statutory damages are applicable internationally. The statutory damages make a huge difference in the US because you don't have to prove the value of the damage from the misappropriation. Additionally, registration prior to infringement (or within 90 days of it) entitles you to attorney's fees when you prevail on a copyright action.

[@tridinh1011]

how do you register every single photo?

[@thepanel2935]

I'm a pro photographer in Australia. Here, copyright exists automatically without the Rego procedure used in the US. But of course if you're working and living in the US, you have to do things the US way.

[@Bike_Lion]

@@tridinh1011 - You don't technically *need to* register anything, as anything you produce is *automatically* copyright. But if there's a particularly important photo that you're publishing then registration might be a good idea and make the legal process a bit easier.

[@iancraig2507]

As a photographer of 45 yrs this is a very good lesson to all photographers. Thank you.

[@alessandrocernuzzi]

Please, somebody steal one of my pictures, I need a bigger flat

[@revon0521]

"Russia, if you're listening..."

[@MyGroo]

that is, your *lawyer* needs a bigger flat

[@simon_patterson]

It is drilled into us in Australia not to admit fault when it comes to legal matters; everything from corporate issues to having a car crash. This includes "don't apologise", as we're commonly told an apology can be construed as an admission of guilt. So there's no way that company would have written "sorry, we're so embarrassed we made this mistake" in their response to you, because their insurers would have had a pink fit at them. It sucks that they continually lied to you, though. People like them who have no sense of shame are the toughest to deal with, as all they recognise is power. You did well to eke what you did out of this dodgy mob. Sorry that my fellow countrymen caused you so much stress. Thanks for fighting them too, as now there is one additional bunch of Australians who have a newfound respect for photographer's copyright. Or at least, they have a newfound motivation to avoid the pain of being caught out for breaching copyright.

[@stevengoetz6773]

I know, big surprise, Canadians say "sorry" a lot. In Ontario we have the Apology act of 2009. The TLDR; apologizing in anyway is not admitting fault, or guilt in the Province of Ontario. "Effect of apology on liability 2. (1) An apology made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any matter, (a) does not, in law, constitute an express or implied admission of fault or liability by the person in connection with that matter; (b) does not, despite any wording to the contrary in any contract of insurance or indemnity and despite any other Act or law, void, impair or otherwise affect any insurance or indemnity coverage for any person in connection with that matter; and (c) shall not be taken into account in any determination of fault or liability in connection with that matter. 2009, c. 3, s. 2 (1)."

[@simon_patterson]

Steven Goetz the law about apologising may be exactly the same in Australia, I'm not sure. However, rightly or wrongly, it is still drilled in to Australians not to apologise because that could be construed as an admission. Either way, I think your law in Ontario about apologies is very sensible and people-friendly. As Tony said in the video, it would have been much better if the company that stole his image had expressed an apology right up front. Your law encourages that, which is a much better way to foster good human relationships, compared to Australia where there was no way Tony was going to ever receive an apology.

[@MsTessG]

What I love about you two is how much you seem to respect one another. You don't compete for "air" time or throw the other under the bus to prove your points, etc. Glad you got some compensation for this blatant disregard for your rights.

[@cameralabs]

I'm glad you pursued this and that you ended up with something even after the lawyers had taken their cut - the principle is priceless. When I lived in New Zealand I was stunned by the blatant ripping-off of brands, especially food products in the supermarkets. I got the impression people thought anything was up for grabs because they were so distant from the rest of the World, and no-one would notice or be bothered to follow-up. In a semi-related incident, a designer there re-used an entire layout I'd designed without even asking and thought that was perfectly reasonable. It's an attitude difference. No worries, mate, right?.

[@MikeLikesChannel]

It's exactly that... geographic isolation. "This product is never going to be on a New York City shelf, doesn't matter." Before the internet, that logic was still awful, yet totally sound.

[@tomasxfranco]

*principle

[@cameralabs]

whoops, yes, you're right!

[@Meekerextreme]

They would have gotten more if they didn't have that middleman. But different country so it's understandable they might of needed them.

[@juanpriskinez2430]

this happens all over the world.. you mentioned webdesign? .. there are bazillion "freelancers" who just download design templates (often ripped from market sites) for free and just paste their copyright on them.. then they just smash it togeter in wordpress with 50 plugins and then look for other freelancers who will tweak,patch,repair,finish their fucked up website to match clients desires.. but still they will try to bank huge price for it like it was all "custom made" .. people have zero respect for others work...

[@TheVampressKiss]

I spent over a month having my art removed from someones store on eBay. They made a nice profit from my work , I never received a dime for it. Not a single penny. The fact they made money off of my work disgusted me to the point that for years I stopped creating my art. NOT PHOTOGRAPHY , ART and I wasn't the only artist they stole from. For me , it was the other way around. I'm Australian and had to fight against an American. Sure the laws are different , but copyright infringement is the same in both countries.

[@notme1998]

I would have went to America and knock on their shop's door with a 12 gauge in my hands saying "is this the way you do it here, right?" You'll get paid trust me

[@Olds79Starfire]

@@notme1998 Dummy

[@rob2650]

@@notme1998 I wish it actually was that easy :(

[@StephenBoothUK]

I mostly shoot street scenes, mostly in the city I live in (obviously), I also work for the city council of that city. About 15 years ago the marketing department produced a mousemat to use as a give way at events promoting the city to businesses that featured a single picture of one of the main squares at night. A stack of these mousemats appeared in our office to be used at an event, and I recognised the photo. I dug through my Photobucket album and sure enough, it was my photo. I raised this with my manager who first said it must just be a similar photo but I was able to show it exactly the same as my photo, I even brought in the negative and original print I'd scanned. When challenged Marketing just sad they had gotten the picture from Corporate Communications who admitted they had gotten it from my Photobucket but then came back with "You're not a professional photographer, copyright only protects work by professionals". I sent them the relevant legislation, copied in the Head of Legal, to prove that anyone could have copyright protections, not just professionals. Then they claimed that if it was on the internet it was in the public domain, before I could respond to them the Head of Legal told them to stop talking such rubbish. I then met with them with the Head of Legal and they opened with that since I worked for the council any images I produced belonged to the council (basically 'work for hire'). I pointed out that these were images that I had taken in my own time and as I was not employed as a photographer they had no claim on the images I produced at all. Eventually, we just agreed that I would grant the council a one time, non-exclusive, license to use the image (and a couple of others they were including in a leaflet they were producing as part of the same campaign) as long as they credited me and included my email address.

[@HolzMichel]

there are indeed many companies that have employees sign waivers that ANY intellectual property they have or come up with during the period of employment with the company, or even for several years afterwards, automatically becomes company property. i've worked for several outfits that had me sign such waivers. the last prospective employer that gave me such a waiver to sign, i refused to sign. the whole thing was so draconian i ended up not finishing out the hiring process, got up and left. if an employer gives you such a waiver to sign, you're not obligated to sign it. if it's a term of employment you're better off somewhere else.

[@MrJrusselltx]

That's the world of lawyers, not set up for the client but the "pros". The other side is that if no one ever pushes back on this kind of theft, it doesn't give any incentive to the other side to not steal in the first place. Thank you for all the rest of us for fighting the battle even though it was stressful.

[@TonyAndChelsea]

Yep, it made us mad that these people thought they could just steal someone else's work and not even offer anything to make it right. Hopefully, they won't steal photos anymore.

[@smaakjeks]

19:58 Aw man. I don't even. Still, though. This was an incredibly satisfying case. Had the offending party acted more honest, I would have more sympathy for them. But the way they cheated and cowered and lied over and over just makes this delicious. Poetic cheesecake.

[@AlbertoDsign]

No, it was a shitty case, didn´t you see the product?

[@smaakjeks]

10:03 Another thing that makes Australian attorneys more difficult to work with is that they demand that payment be in the form of beer, knoives, galas, and didgeridoos. #everydayracism

[@Ruud_Brouwer]

Smaakjeks K that's not a knoive

[@gilbertogranados3018]

best answer ever! lol

[@smaakjeks]

Well, that was the joke. That's why I put "knoives" in there.

[@tuionetoa.l.282]

Theu also accept panadols

[@kerebronemtadrata5459]

And they're all named Bruce. Very confusing. :P

[@stevecarrillo]

Interesting story. In 2007 I shot a new band for their myspace promos and flyers. It was a verbal agreement arranged by a mutual friend. They used one specific photo as their logo. (It was altered a bit) Well, they completely blew up and went international. After many attempts to contact the artist, I had to reach out to their management. A few phone calls and emails later, they asked what was my price. I gave them a price and we settled for 60% of it. This didn’t involve any lawyers. Their first counter offer was that they’d hire me to shoot their second album cover.

[@thepanel2935]

Which band was it?

[@mikeclark1482]

I had a photo stolen off of DPChallange a few years ago, but I was so flattered that someone liked my photo enough to want to steal it, that I wasn't inclined to "go after" them. After a little research I found that it was a little ma/pa organization that made affirmation posters and I asked them to put a credit line on their website and to be more careful and ask first in the future, which they agreed to with many "I'm so sorry"'s thrown in. But then again this is my hobby, not my living :-)

[@Vicos]

Good job. So much better than coming out of the gate nasty and making threats.

[@agylub]

Australian copyright law is very clear cut about this so there is no defence. Picking a legal firm would have been more beneficial had you contacted a professional photographic organisation such as the AIPP first for guidance. I would have thought taking the matter to court would have the end result of you being awarded costs because they broke the law so your net return would have been higher.

[@vieenrose179]

Yes but no one was taking the case because they were international

[@labibbidabibbadum]

@@vieenrose179 But he was cold-calling lawyers. Agylub is suggesting, correctly, that he should have instead contacted a photographer's organisation, who would have known the right lawyer.

[@ZinsWorld]

exactly @@labibbidabibbadum

[@drportland8823]

Their scumminess increased as the tale went on, but way back at the beginning where you were incredulous they brought a lawyer in, I was thinking that the thing I would do in their shoes is bring a lawyer in. If I found out I had been screwed by my graphics company and put stolen art on a product I was selling, and was contacted by the owner of the art my first thought would be to call a lawyer and find out what the heck to do. And no lawyer is going to say "You should talk to them yourself."

[@simon_patterson]

I agree with you. I didn't see the fact they got a lawyer to write back as an indication of anything sinister. The lawyer tried his luck at a bluff, and the Northrups saw right through it. Everything after that from the Australian end was dodgy as heck.

[@StephenMatrese]

DrPortland Yeah, they can't bill you if you handle it alone

[@StephenMatrese]

Simon Patterson their response was a little messed up (ignoring half the letter)

[@madtonesbr]

Right but that's their client's ask. A lawyer isn't going to work against his client, their job is to fulfill their client's objectives. Don't blame that on the lawyer. Imagine if you hired a lawyer and they did the opposite of what you asked them to do!

[@donaldj.lecher4304]

As a US patent and trademark attorney, (and photography enthusiast who represents many photo-gear clients), this is a great story about the murky world of intellectual property misappropriation. Congrats Chelsea and Tony! A great story every pro photog should acquaint themselves with.

[@BrianIrwin]

@Donald, based on your experience is there anything you would suggest doing differently? I have no idea if registering iwth the US Copyright office ahead of time would make a difference for Australia (I guess it would).

[@simon_patterson]

Brian it would make no difference. I bet Tony and Chelsea register all their images with the Library of Congress anyway, but that's only useful when the offender is in the USA.

[@Ali3Peat]

Registration is always beneficial as US copyright is enforceable 176 countries, however, the damages calculation (amount of money) is what is effected by country.

[@StaffReed]

Thanks so much of taking this on. As a relatively high profile case, you are doing something good for the industry. Cudos.

[@HywelPhillips]

Thank you so much guys for 1) sticking to your principles and seeing this through and 2) being so forthright and honest about it all. You're awesome.

[@Basin79]

So glad you where able to fight this. I bet many can't unfortunately due to the costs involved. Can't stand thieves so well done. Justice is served.

[@DLCSpider]

Depends on where you live. In some parts of Europe the loser has to pay the costs of both parties.

[@Basin79]

DLC Spider indeed. But it's still a gamble. Unless I absolutely could afford it I wouldn't risk it as some judges are positively numb.

[@espro436]

As far as i know (and from my personal experience) here in Germany layers (both sides) gets paid from side who loses the case. It seems logical.

[@markus8282]

Actually in this case the lawyers got paid by the looser. I think they would do it the same way.

[@MrGarzog]

Not entirely correct. The looser will have to pay for the lawyer when the case gets to a court. Since this deicision appears to be a settlement with no court involved. Every side needs to pay their lawyers themselves. Same if id would have taken place in germany

[@RobertsonDMcI]

Check the fine print in the settlement papers: Do you still retain the copyright to your photo, or did you relinquish any rights to your photo when you agreed to accept the "settlement"? Nightmare scenario would be if you discovered that you are unable to use your own photo on future international sales on your book.

[@SlavKarwasz]

I wouldn't be suprised if this is what happend here. I'm always amazed how people think about those companies. Do you really think they do that 'by accident'? Each of those design decisions undergoes an approval process. That's not decision made on copyright side of things. This is cost-profit case. If expected profit is higher than cost of settlement - we go for it. If it's lower, they either search for new picture or apply methods to lower the risk.

[@hautehussey]

Also, does the settlement involve the use of Chelsea’s image and/or the Northrup brand? If not, you could theoretically sue for that use as well, and the settlement could be much bigger.

[@WalrusRiderEntertainment]

Try doing this in China 😂

[@DreDredel3]

In China, there's no sense of copyright even in their culture. They do it so often, it's accepted in their culture. So when a foreigner tries to sue them, they just wonder "what's wrong with this person protesting?". Copyright infringement is accepted & even encouraged. They just feel anything they can get their hands on & access is automatically fair use.

[@maedhrosprime3889]

Communism at his finest. Lol

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

G.F.L. with that....

[@NatsNotHere]

Had some random lady crop a digital painting I had made and pass it off as her own. Caught her telling other people off for using it as part of their own artworks (which I had previously approved) and she got all snippy with me when I contacted her. She did end up taking "her" cropped version down and I still see my original floating around from time to time, signature still intact. That's just super fun though. I shared it openly and people appreciated that. I only had an issue with this one lady that claimed it was hers. No drama besides that so I can't say I've had a "problem" with it.

[@Kelkschiz]

I love seeing people defend their rights and scumbags not getting away scot-free with this kind of thing, which happens way too often. Way to go guys!

[@Kelkschiz]

Apples and oranges. This situation is quite a bit different from someone making a meme. That being said, everyone should act responsibly when using images that are not their own, even when making a meme.

[@Kelkschiz]

I don't dispute that at all. But what is your point?

[@peterrobbins2862]

Should this apply retrospectively if so America would be bankrupted from historical cases

[@photographerjonathan]

wow I'm tired just from listening to it, there is a reason Lawyers have there reputation and are called sharks, but what really sucks is photos get stolen all the time, and because it is so hard for people to do anything about it, the people who are steeling them usually get away with it, so I am happy that you guys were actually able to do something, but I was thinking that since this company said they took them out of the stores even though they didn't, whats to stop them from making even more of them, and they probably also lied about how many they made in the first place, I know a model who's picture was stolen by a dating sight, it's used to make people believe there are girls like her on the dating sight, and she hasn't been able to get the company to stop using the image, and I think at this point she has just given up, personally I don't believe that this company didn't know in advance that they didn't have the right to use this photo, they just thought because it was in another country that they would get away with it, and in most cases they would have, did you ever get to see the actual phone case ? you should of told them that they had to ship all the remaining cases to you

[@madtonesbr]

She should hire a lawyer, lol. Why are you blaming lawyers for a situation in which lawyers are not involved at all?

[@tobiashenriksen7068]

Well, let's put it into perspective: if, as stated, the settlement is based on the price for the shoot and production of that (admittedly beautiful) photo, and it matches the salary for two sets of lawyers, working on a case for - according to Tony and Chelsea themselves - a *long* time, then perhaps it is not that unreasonable.

[@KristiansKazmers]

They still have those photos on their website. When you press on featured products there it still is. An iPhone 6/6S with Chelsea's photo on it.

[@jroads323]

And yep, still there as of today!

[@KeckerErt]

Push

[@almath2115]

Wow.....I'm sure that was stressful and exhausting. It's unfortunate how some folks do not respect photographers and their work. I'm glad you were able to "resolve" that situation and move on. Thanks for sharing and educating us on some of these unforseen scenarios.

[@qedsteve]

BRAVO!! I am just a photo-hobbyist but work in an industry that zealously protects any IP that comes out of product development - copyrights, trademarks, patents. Too often we see people reverse-engineering and selling things that are obvious rip-offs. Unfortunately all too often in China. All I can say is it does my heart good to see you following-through! (and maybe, just maybe I'll have images that are marketable to people other than my mother or used to document my work) KEEP up the good fight and make it obvious! (and thanks so much for helping me get comfy with my D850 before I take it underwater)

[@JohnAudioTech]

If you put photos on the web, they'll be stolen. I used to have a site with photos. Using Google, I was able to find many of them copied. Some multiple times. Nothing appeared to be used in a product.

[@SteamvilleQuintet]

And isn't it a total gas when the monkeys who scream "Everything on the web should be free" spend days asking on forums how to protect THEIR work, (same as for us, cannot be done) once they actually do some of it. Usually because we have become irritated enough to stop publishing stuff they can make use of, even if it costs our own shops in the process.

[@pat4005]

NexySaloon Yes, I agree with you. I am so sick of reading that all our own hard work should be free for the taking, but the weasels who copy it and other company’s work, are the 1st to scream if their “work” was stolen. I had recently read an “artist’s” post on a copyright info website, (not a working full-time artist, but a hobbyist), who sells prints of their own color drawings of popular manga and anime characters in poses similar to or exactly like the originals. The person was whining about their ripoff artwork being ripped-off by a somewhat popular gallery artist (NYC art gallery) and used in a piece of art that was made up of several other images put together of known copyrighted characters. LOL

[@amitabhsrivastava1255]

JohnAudioTech Never thought I will find you on a photograph channel.

At least you have set a precedent, now. If anyone else does it, you can show you are prepared to go to law across jurisdictions. That will almost certainly make people compliant.

[@ashleylooksfab]

yeah the deterrence is pretty much the main reason for suing in the first place

[@jimgoede7247]

Good points. I was involved in a lawsuit that resulted from an accident my daughter was in (not her fault). Took 2 YEARS in the "fast track". We won and got a small amount, but it was a pain in the a$$. It's never fun, but in the end it's PRINCIPLE! If you don't call them out they will never learn and they will do this to others. Good for you for taking the high road and not giving in.

[@kapilesh14]

both of them are laughing but deep inside the anger and the hate is still boiling.

[@johntait5081]

You did a great service to ALL photographers by following this to the bitter end.. THANK YOU! This video should be a "must see" for all photographers AND users of intellectual property. It educates those who genuinely don't know, and is a warning to those who don't care!

[@cigarobsession]

Great vid and outcome guys. I’ve been going through the same thing for the last couple years, working with pixsy. Hundreds of cases. Theft is the absolute norm in business, period. The process is insanely long and the legal cut is huge but it’s the principle to me in the end.

[@zavoina]

It sucks, but I'm glad you didn't just roll over. The next photographer who does get paid because their image wasn't stolen owes you a debt.

[@Paullebbon]

Wow, I thought that product was sold by you. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I have seen for sale it in the airport duty free shop in Singapore and recently seen them for sale in shops in Vietnam.

[@barbarianatgate2000]

That's not necessarily bad news. The fact that they've already received damages sets a precedent for an additional suit for continued use.

[@Csoery]

I wish someone took up the case again and made halocase pay through the nose!

[@IanVonEssex]

Maybe they keep manufacturing them... and selling (you can`t prove they only sell 10,000 units in all this time).

[@TheRg191]

I had a very similar situation happen 4 years back, I don’t normally do sports events as a commercial photographer but I had an interesting opportunity to cover a world speedway championships on behalf of British cycling. I did the event as a favour, in exchange the photos would be paid for by the sponsors for use in advertising. I completed my shoot, sent low res files to each of the sponsors along with instructions for contacting me with any requests for use of high res images and pricing. All company’s were a breeze to deal with and their marketing departments generally knew the procedure. However an engineering company based in the UK (ironically sponsoring an Australian rider) had taken the low res files, put them on social media, online advertising, their website and on the riders sponsored ads. Having waited a few months to settle up with everyone I started looking into the engineering firms online presence and saw my images everywhere. I contacted them saying (in summary) I’m glad you liked the images I sent over a few months ago, would you mind paying for them as agreed? No response for a further three months, it wasn’t until I threatened legal action that they responded claiming that they didn’t know they’d done anything wrong. I know my emails had been going to the right place however for the whole period because the company directors rather stupidly had direct email addresses listed on LinkedIn, they had been cc’d in on every email. The director who responded claimed that his web developers and marketing team had used the images and he was not aware they had not been paid for. Again I said that’s fine, it’s an honest mistake here’s an invoice including usage rights. He then tried to haggle on the prices I had agreed in my original email! At that point I lost patience and mentioned litigation again. He replied with one word “paid” and I’ve not heard from them again. Of course I didn’t want to take him to court but the threat of litigation was the only way I could move forward. It was a matter of principal and even worse an already agreed price they thought they could get away without paying.

[@leanneland]

As a graphic designer the first thing we were taught day 1 is that you don’t steal photos. And this was before google existed. I’m so offended to hear this happened that way, and I’d have to question the validity of the ‘designer’. I’m so glad to hear you stuck with it and saw it through.

[@eyewaves...]

If you start with a lawyer, then they dig their heels in because they earn with others misfortunes. Suppose your first email didn't demand the breakdown, instead if you had written a commercial proposal, let say something like: You are using my product without my permission hence I suggest you should agree with me to a value of its worth asap. Please forward your suggestion for me to determine whether or not to accept your offer. Their response could be debunked with your email requesting the list you sent out in the first place. I think you may have confused the owner to think you want to fight. Hence he/she may have panicked and they went to a law firm. I agree 100% - avoid lawyers by all alternative means. Once they are involved, they focus on your wallet no matter how much you try to hide it. They are the smartest pick-pockets around, because they don't get caught.

[@JaredDavidson]

Problem with your idea was explained in the first few minutes of the video. They did NOT want the photo used by anyone because they were using it on their own book.

[@eyewaves...]

My response was related to that they could do a deal, because the cell phone company was using it already. However, photos like SW are reusable commodities. Obviously it is up to T &C to do their commercial maths.

[@venturalawyer]

Eyewaves, this is often a good idea, and what a good lawyer will suggest - but often people infringe on photographic copyrights, and simply don't want to pay; they think photography should be free, or their "innocent" infringement shouldn't cost them anything.

[@philippetrov4881]

In Bulgaria when someone win a lawsuit he can file a new one for making the other side pay his lawyer fees. And usually wins again.

[@okaro6595]

In Finland that is automatic. The loser almost always pays. This allows nice extortion.If there are 100 € damages, you can demand 1000 €. If the person refuses you sue it and you'll get 100 € and 2000 € in costs. Sure you'll get just the 100 € but it comes more expensive for person you sue. Copyright holders abuse this.

[@wilkgr]

I thought this was a thing in Australia too, maybe they didn't pursue it or it isn't a thing here.

[@gungadinn]

Tony, while you may have had to pay taxes on the settlement, the legal costs are/were deductible from you taxes as a business expense.

[@jackblackwhole]

Kinda false advertising on the case manufacture part too. So glad you guys won the case. Worth it!

[@BartechTV]

You can still buy the case with Chelsea's photo online on several Australian & NZ websites.

[@ShimonGaliley]

Moral of this video: Do not anger Tony and Chelsea

[@subwarpspeed]

Shimon Galiley Or pixel!

[@muffemod]

Moral of this video: Protect your shit.

[@bashful228]

Oh the old "external graphic designer" thing. I live in Australia and have rung design firms when I recognise they have ripped off other firms work. In one case a church used the application logo of a very well known macOS code editor (Coda, it was a big deal once, made by Panic software and IIRC logo designed by Icon Factory). The "external designer" they commissioned said it was vector art they bought in a clip art collection, which was obviously bullshit because it wasn't even a vector illustration, it was heavily 'shopped which the makers of Coda, Panic confirmed with me. I didn't think is was very wholesome or ethical to be lying to a Church organisation. Other times the firm says oh we had a temp designer with us who did that. Again pretty suspicious explanation, and abdicating responsibility.

[@Ish98]

Tony the lawyer/ photographer /dog lover

[@foxtowercommunications]

And also a computer programmer? Renaissance Man!

[@patricknepton8602]

knowledge is like peanute butter... less you have more you have to spread it

[@xhani6459]

They say it’s been so cold in NY this winter that even the lawyers are seen walking with their hands in their own pockets.

[@AndrewClelland]

A similar circumstance happened to me a few years ago... Bugatti and Palmer Johnson used a commercial photograph of mine without authorisation (copying, modifying, and distributing worldwide). As it was taken for another client under an exclusive license, both my client and I were not impressed. Especially when they came back with the same line as you heard... "we had no idea it belonged to you and thought it was a stock photograph". I wrote a cease and desist but action was limited and slow... so immediately involved a Lawyer in Sweden (where I am based), and over 2 years later finally received a settlement. Unfortunately due to the agreement, I cannot disclose the amount, but although significant, I was in the negative after my legal fees (I had legal insurance, but not for issues arising outside Scandinavia). In the end was just glad to get rid of it all. Such a pity when the companies in the wrong make life so hard for you... so I feel for you!

[@KarrGalaxyStudios]

Glad you won the case.. I totally agree to try to keep lawyers out of it however given that sending any admission of guilt on the companies fault they choose to protect themselves for fearing of that acknowledgement being used against them... it's more than likely their lawyer advised them when they needed advice. Standard procedure in a lot of corporations these days.. The International rights and laws like you mentioned could have also dictated the legal response instead of a personal one. Considering that they already had a high margin product on the shelves already.. they were already heavily invested in it which means they were trying to figure out a way to minimize the loss. It's possible they feared an even bigger financial loss. Bringing manufactured products to market is extremely expensive business. I will say that this is the reason the legal system exists in the first place is to solve disputes however Tony and Chelsea were clearly in the right here and the other company not at all. I'm guessing that designer got fired or was sued as well. They should have at least considered sending a personal reply and worked out a deal first before getting lawyers involved however its a hard place to negotiate if the image was already on the product on the shelf. I worked for a video game company that actually shut down due to losing a lawsuit after it spun out of control (even though it shouldn't have - they had more lawyers and a bigger budget).. i am well aware of the consequences that can affect peoples lives and the Information Technology hell that ensues when a company is in a lawsuit. I am still feeling the affects of that outcome today. Legal advice is good but avoid lawsuits where possible or only as a last resort!

[@dcculver2]

You forgot to add the 59k YT views and the 2.7k likes to the positive column of this event. Congratulations for winning and, most of all, finally having it behind you!!!

[@photodeva7173]

A Professional Graphic Designer won't do that. It's a crime. Bring shame to Graphic Design Profession.

[@MrPhotoman75]

Thanks for the video. I had to sue a newspaper for using one of my photos beyond our agreed upon usage rights. They sold my photo to a third party for advertising and did not compensate me. I wound up settling with them for less than I wanted and the process was a hassle and a headache. But I think I would do it again if I had to. EVERY photographer should take a basic business law course, like at a junior college night school as i did. Understanding contracts, litigation and damages plus things like fraud are extremely useful things to know. They should teach that kind of stuff to everyone in high school.

[@BobBenz55]

This happened to me and my wife's photo. Amazing job you guys do thou, learnt loads about my D500 👍

[@JolanXBL]

Sue the lawyers for being scummy

[@MrAyybee2cold]

Jolan XBL brings more lawyers lol.

[@kevintanumihardja3881]

20:04 LOL.. Being a lawyer myself, no offence taken. Indeed, legal fee is very expensive and one of the things we usually explain first before proceeding to a case. Be up front with the fee is always advisable. Nothing fun about a lawsuit and that's why I just love to enjoy my free time taking photos!

[@MixedApparitions]

Hell yeah, Tony Northrup uses the Oxford comma!

[@TonyAndChelsea]

Unless it's before an ampersand #madlads

[@xenonram]

Mack Attack Doesn't everyone? It drives me nuts when I see, "... blank, blank and blank."

[@MixedApparitions]

Sadly no. I've even seen big corporations not use it.

[@Csoery]

Wow, this whole story is extremely infuriating. All that work, the creative design, the idea, the setup, the gear, the time, the experience... And all it takes for someone to take it is literally just a right-click... And it's not a lampstand or something, it's a person's face for heaven's sake, it belongs to somebody... How can someone be so unethical, as a graphic designer, no less? Lucky though that Tony had some previous exposure to these procedures and kept pushing. A lot of people would have been intimidated, I bet. It's not about the final amount, but still... It's a pro shot, I think you would have deserved every cent of that $40k. Thanks for sharing what you went through - it's a great lesson to all of us.

[@rickeys]

I've been a part-time pro photographer for over 40 years. I only experienced problems with photo theft after the advent of the web. Between 1978 and 1987 I've taken massive amounts of pictures in the USA, Canada, Asia, Europe and Australia. In the mid-90s, I put three photos up on my personal website. Fishing boats on the shore near Lisbon, Portugal. i had received an award for these photos in the mid-80s. I had been doing a Google search on Portugal when I found that the photos appeared on a Portuguese-language website promoting tourism in Portugal. I sent an email to the website, but didn't hear back. I let it go, since the effort would involve international communication, and possibly a lawyer, and maybe a lot getting lost in translation. In another case, our local school district used a photo on their website that I'd taken Downtown. They removed it immediately when I asked them to take it down, and we parted as friends.

[@fynbo1007]

Thank you for sharing your story

[@samir6047]

jesus that pie chart is crazy, if leeches could become a human being, they would be lawyers

[@DBLCreations]

An honest mistake is an honest mistake, but when you ask someone to take the stolen picture down and they don't comply (as seen by the people who took snapshots of the products with the photo still selling), that's not a mistake anymore! Good for you that you didn't give up on this! Oh, and don't be sorry to lawyers, they are just straight up thieves, nothing more nothing less, almost like insurance company's. Sadly enough, you need them. But if i look at your chart that you make, i'm sorry but i can't say anything else but THIEF! And of course, no one wants a lawsuit, it's not good for any of the people involved. Sadly, sometimes there is no other way.

[@CriticalRoleHighlights]

I'm so glad I live in a country where photographs aren't protected by copyright unless they're used for artistic purposes or an invasion of privacy.

[@LeighWinspear]

Well done. Tenacity, resilience and fantastic public support brought the thieves to justice.

[@KultKawaii]

I work in print and I see stolen stock photos with water marks on them more often than I would like while prepping files in prepress, also designers suckkkkkkkk at designing things for print in general 🤦🏻‍♀️ they forget bleeds, art is rgb and images are 72dpi stolen from the web, files weren’t packaged for print the list goes on.... Lol but yes I see sooooo much water mark art come through our shop and I just think it’s because either the designer forgot or didn’t know any better but seriously 😒 designers need to step it up a notch because I’m really not impressed by their lack of being able to do their job correctly. Also I’m thankful to have started my career in print as its making me a stronger more versatile graphic designer 👩‍🎨 the skills I am learning here everyday are invaluable 😊

[@marcdraco2189]

and this is why I use Public Domain/CC0 photographs in my memes.

[@marklarson3934]

When someone wrongs you never never never contact them -- that's what attorney's are for When they receive a legal letter from an attorney the wrong becomes right FAST !

[@AndresLopezOvejero]

Bob Steenson Dude, this entire video is about how it is not fast AT ALL

[@AKAtheProwler]

It's beautiful to see brother and sister work together

[@mikewhalen8020]

I used to be the IT Manager at a hotel in Savannah, GA. Several years ago the GM came to me and asked if I could completely revamp our aging website. One of the things I did was take pictures of the outside of the hotel. Specifically, one of the photos I used on the website was on the hotel entrance and signage. Several months after the website went live, I received both an email and a phone call from a local photographer DEMANDING I take down "his" photo off our website and printed material (the same photo was used on brochures for the hotel and other marketing). After having to prove that this was a photo I myself took, he then claimed that it was "in effect" the same photo as it was the same subject matter and angle. It actually went to court (he took to me to court for using a photo I took on my equipment because it was the same subject matter as one he was selling in his gallery [?]). Needless to say, once the judge saw both photos he all but laughed him out of court. (No, I did not engage the services of an attorney. The differences in photos was blatantly obvious.) Yur attorneys pretty much just went through the motions. As you were in the US and they were in Australia, the attorneys there was no way in hell that you were going to show up at their office wanting updates. What a bunch of ripoff artists. I'm sorry you had to go through all of that.

[@vincencohan3626]

If they just paid you prob cost them only $10.000 instead of $60.000

[@darrenconn3847]

$10. For the photographer and $59,990. for the model!

[@vincencohan3626]

Bellingham Conn im ok with that too 😄📷

[@LordPenny95]

Surely your money shouldn't being paying for their lawyers too right?

[@Naughtystimpy]

sebastian penny - yeh you're right. They bamboozled us with figures and pie charts so that we wouldn't notice. If they won the case, they definitely wouldn't have paid the other side's costs... Why is Steve Martin lying to us and to Chelsea?? He must have pocketed this money himself.

[@Dsurprenant4]

What are you guys talking about??? The pie chart shows a $60 000 total, $40 000 of which (10 000 to each of them and 20 000 to their lawyers) was the settlement. The other 20 000 was never their money, its the estimate he gave as the amount the DEFENDANTS most likely had to pay their lawyers. Its not a chart showing what they paid its a chart showing the total amount of money the defendants had to pay (40 000 in settlement and 20 000 in lawyer fees).

[@youknowwho9247]

@@Naughtystimpy I'll try to make this as simple as possible. The losing side is only required to pay the winning side's legal fees if there is an actual court ruling. If you settle, usually both sides pay their own legal fees. Unless the settlement says otherwise. Legally speaking a settlement is a contract, so the involved parties can negotiate whatever payment distribution and other conditions they want.

[@DentalTech1000]

I'm an amateur photographer with 60,000+ photos on flickr. i set them all to Creative Commons so anyone can use any of them for free, and I'm thrilled when they do. I run across my photos all the time on web sites, including hundreds all over Wikipedia, and it's always fun for me. I realize most photographers are very possessive of their work but I am not that way at all. My attitude in this case would be a) how fun that they used it all over Australia and New Zealand and, b) it's a photo of a face that they took, not my cure for cancer. A face. Big deal. If I were the model I'd be thrilled my face is being seen all over the world.

[@royalescorts6712]

Exactly!

[@captbon]

at 20:30, my neighbor is a divorce lawyer. His client had 2 lawyers and the wife at 2 lawyers. They argued for an hour over their VHS Movie collection (1980's and it was extensive). My neighbor finally said STOP! You two have argued for an hour, and I know my bill rate and I know my partner's bill rate...and I'm sure your lawyer's bill rate is similar. In the time you've spent arguing, you could have re-purchased the entire collect and labeled each tape in gold, His and Hers. They finally shut up.

[@skipnall]

I just settled two cases of someone using a photo of mine. I had the copyright registered and the image was for sale as a canvas by a retail distributor with license by me. It was used in a movie as a background without permission in one case and in another a woman had copied the image and was selling it as her photograph in a gallery here in Florida. My take was 10k in the first case and 26K in the second after legal fees. In the first case the legal fee was 50% and in second 40%. Thus settlements of 20k and 40K. No idea about defendant fees. Both cases settled out of court and within 45 days. I never contacted either party myself. Their first contact was from lawyers demanding settlement so they new up front I was not playing.

[@LangstonBall]

Really digging your channel. have learned a lot!

[@813Productions]

Wait, who was the middleman again?

[@MrtinVarela]

11:51 Someone we don't know of because they *didn't reveal* the names?

[@CaioEvertonTB]

The law firm specialized in these type of lawsuits.

[@hautehussey]

The middleman website must’ve had to connect with local attorneys. I can’t remember the site but I remember looking at it once. It didn’t look like a good deal but the theory is that they handle the work and the stress. Tony seems to be saying it didn’t really work in taking away the stress.

[@pteppig]

Middleman, what is it ? A short, sarcastic comedy series, very popular, but was canceled by the network way too early. But thats not important right now.

[@MarcelloBranca]

The cat

[@hutchwhovlogs4062]

You're photo is still being used by halo case. There are still some of the cases being sold. I found one for sale on mightyape.com . I was shocked to still see it!

[@martincowley2979]

Still there. Also on other websites, just Google 'Halocase' .

[@coreyperez13]

I bet they now go out and print the image on toilet paper.... Heck, they paid for it, right?

[@hautehussey]

Corey Perez that’s not how any of this works.

[@kenjacques1973]

Just stumbled on this video. Wow international copyright. I was the photographer on the movie “Bring It On”. Universal did a similar issue with 27 of my images from the movie published a book. Their usage was for marketing and PR not product. We went round and round for a few months. Finally I said settle today or the copyright fees will go up substantially when I contact my attorney. They ended up settling for my original request. But it sucks to have be an attorney as well as an artist. Good job on the video.

[@SejinKim5]

Storytime! I recently discovered that my work had been stolen from under my nose, and I was, like you, completely shocked and flabbergasted. I had outlined what I consider to be very clear lines indicating what appropriate use was and what conditions were in place, and they were fairly lenient conditions at that. I was really lucky in that I was able to just get an apology and a promise that the work would be taken down (and the other party actually did). The thing is, I'm completely cool with people sharing my media for personal use, assuming that they give their audience a way to find me (whether it be through a tag or by name), and that they don't alter the media, especially in ways that compromise quality, as it really tarnishes my reputation as someone interested in delivering a really high quality product. For commercial use, I'm cool with people contacting me to get rights and whatnot. Theft is a really, really, really bad thing though, and I'm glad that you guys were able to get something out of the settlement!

[@TechnicallyaNomad]

Whoo! Justice has been served! Now you can buy a RED or another Tesla haha

[@chelseanorthrup8787]

hah, well, if you watch to the end you'll see we only got a very small portion of that.

[@TechnicallyaNomad]

Chelsea Northrup yeahhh just got to that part... Maybe buy a Fuji GFX? A Leica? 🤣

[@bernhardtsen74]

go for the Red camera!4K slo mo footage!!!!

[@HenryTheBoilermaker3rdYear]

The Tech Lord Asian if you watch the whole video mate they only got 10,000 AUD.

[@ChocolateHabanero22]

Get a Fuji GFX and a XH-1, Ken Wheeler recommends them both.

[@루루97]

20:01 as a current law student I was like :(

[@trekguy66]

Love that bubble wrap use. Stealing that idea...wink...😂😉

[@IslandFilmMaker]

As Most are aware, the entire legal system is about the Layers making money not about what you deserve. They do this everyday, they already know how much they can make before it even starts or they won't bother! In my case of divorce, I lost my Photography studio, home, livelihood, and destroyed my good reputation, and my Photography Career. That was 12 years ago! I'm still recovering from it today. The only good that came of it was my amazing son that I finally reconnected with this past month , and for that... i'd do it all over again :)

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

Copyright law in other countries does complicate things, but my understanding of US copyright law is more straight forward. So long as your photo is registered with the US copyright office you can file a suit and seek either statutory or compensatory damages. Compensatory is basically what you guys sought in your case, and if it had been a US based suit may have been the more significant figure. Statutory damages in many cases is much higher than the compensatory. I'm not entirely clear just how much it may be, but at least enough to potentially make it worth while to go for even if the infringement only cost you $50-$1000. The other thing in the US that helps in making a suit worthwhile is that you can sell lawyer's fees as well, I'm assuming that can only be awarded if you win, and the few have to be reasonable, still it's nice to have the infringer pay your lawyer rather than you. Incidentally, there's a great book by a Edward Greenberg (Copyright lawyer) and Jack Reznicki (photographer) called "The Copyright Zone" that talks about all this. Both of them have a lot of experience, and the boom is well written and not boring, which you might expect from a bok dealing with laws.

[@JeremyHamaker]

If you had sent them an email saying things in more the tone you felt, maybe you would have gotten a human response ("Hey, we're wondering what went on here. This is an important picture to us not only because we get paid for our work but this particular photo is already in use in one of our own products. Do you think we could come to some sort of agreement for you to retroactively license this from us?"). I'm a little surprised you're so surprised they lawyered up. Anyone sends me an email with the words "violation" "insist" "compensation" and "damages", I go straight to a lawyer. You said yourself that you worked in a law office for years. Maybe you don't realize that it appears you went straight to the lawyer talk right out of the gate, even though you are not an actual attorney. Hindsight is 20/20 and I'm of course armchair quarterbacking here... Glad in the end that the matter is settled, even if 'nobody is happy.'

[@ZinsWorld]

This is what you call classic NPD behavior.... these two reek of it... so smug

[@mediavormgever]

"I think" you use a photo of the netflix series Better Call Saul. (Car with plate LWYRUP). Did you pay to use this photo? :-)

[@marcdraco2189]

They'll probably claim Fair Use - because 'Murika.

[@dinkledankle]

They don't seem like such blatantly hypocritical people.

[@смиренный-х2б]

They're money hungry if you can't tell. Some people are just greedy/scum and you can tell by looking at them and this little match made in heaven is it. The wife is probably cheating but the husband doesnt want to divorce cause she'll rob him and still run off with a different guy. The chemistry is completely off between the two. Dude with the bleached hair also looks like the kind that wouldnt spare two dollars in change to help someone out with gas.

[@thedaver8]

This podcast is sponsored by someone's sorry ass who stole our photo. 😂😂😂

[@SkyCharter]

Question: Required for the Australia case or not, do you register your images with the US copyright office?