Comments on: This Guy Stole Photography From The Wrong Person… Me

By: Gary Winchester

Gary Winchester — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 15:21:00 +0000

Has anyone heard of the website Fancy.com? Well, since we are talking about stealing images, I thought I would share something I am in the middle of. Fancy.com are crowd sourcing images taken from around the web, from commercial photographers websites and are using them to sell and profit from through the advertising of products. They, and their “curators,” are blatantly stealing known copyrighted images and using them to make a profit. I found this out because one day I noticed our web analytics to show 5% of our web traffic was coming from Fancy.com. I followed the link to see if they reposted on of our blog posts, but I was just taken to a watch image selling a VERY well known watch brand with no credit to our website. There it was, an image we created now welling a 350 dollar watch. Not only did they take the image to sell product, but every time someone clicked on the image, our website traffic was being “taxed” so to speak. SO….. not only were they stealing the images from commercial photographers, but it appears that they are not footing the bill for the web traffic either. If you look at their website, you will see a pleathora of commercial images that could cost millions each year to create.

Upon inquiry to their legal department, and where we should send the bill, we were told that “Image sharing sites, including Fancy, fall under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and its limitation provision regarding user hosted communities. Upon notification of an alleged infringement, we are required to remove the user-generated content. Prior to your notification, we did not have direct knowledge of the user’s alleged activity.”

So according to Fancy and the DMCA, they can troll for great commercial images of products and use them to sell product. This is an insane concept and goes against everything commercial photographers work so hard for with usage rights and negotiating those terms. How many sites are currently doing this?

Are there any legal gurus in the community that know more about this or have experience with the DMCA?

Please, at the very least, tell the commercial photographers that you know about Fancy.com and what they are doing.

By: Chad E Currie

Chad E Currie — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:41:00 +0000

What is funny is that this guy does not realize that you could have taken him to court and been awarded a lot of money, not that he would have been able to actually pay that money. Not saying that you should, but it’s the understanding that 100′s of thousands of dollars would have been stacked on his credit report simply for stealing your photographs. People need to understand that in America as soon as a photographer pushes the shutter release the images are automatically his property and protected under copyright law.

By: Rob S

Rob S — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:39:00 +0000

Wow. Thank you for the lesson in one way - a very good one – to deal with something like this.

By: Samuel Gatlyn

Samuel Gatlyn — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:47:00 +0000

All the images have disappeared. Bummer.

By: Andre Goulet

Andre Goulet — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 06:06:00 +0000

Unless David charges $999 for a weekend seminar. Then it’s okay to try to emulate him. Morally and legally.

By: twolights

twolights — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:42:00 +0000

likewise :) but good to have diverging opinions without bashing. Thanks for that.

By: Brett Benham

Brett Benham — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:13:00 +0000

That didn’t come off as egocentric at all to me. Some people must be reading it with the wrong tone in their head.

By: Brett Benham

Brett Benham — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:11:00 +0000

Agree to disagree :)

By: Chris Burke

Chris Burke — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:01:00 +0000

sorry. i wasnt clear… you werent condeming Lee.. I replied to you, because I agreed with much of what you said.. but i can see how you would think i was implying that you were condeming him.. my bad.. if you read through the posts, many people ARE condemning him for how he is handling it.. they are saying he should be sueing him, and that its just showing people that if they want a free dvd they should just steal from him etc.. lots of people seem mad about the grace Lee is showing..

Im actually very impressed by Lees response and the grace he is showing.. I actually used this very story as an object lesson this morning in my sermon.. about how the world wants us all to sue at every chance we get, but that we are shown grace.. like Lee gave Grace to Mike, even though he did’t deserve it.. but hey… im guessing this site has a rule about theological talk, so i’ll stop there.. just know Lee that you inspired me and I used this story in a sermon today!

By: MissyTz

MissyTz — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 04:38:00 +0000

I don’t see anything in my earlier post about condemning Lee for his actions, especially when the first sentence of my post is giving him kudos for taking the high road. So I’m not quite sure where you got the idea that I was admonishing him on how he handled the situation with Mike.

And there’s also nothing in my earlier post about telling or lecturing Lee on handling that situation differently. It was all about my encounter with plagiarism.

Yes it was Lee’s situation, not anybody else’s, but he chose to put it on a public forum that allowed people to comment on his story so of course people are going to express their opinions. I haven’t gone through the entire thread but from what I’ve read I don’t see anyone lecturing or criticizing Lee for how he handled the situation. I’ve seen nothing but support here.