Last year we told the story of how Noam Galai's self portrait image had been stolen and reprinted hundreds of times around the world without his permission. What people were shocked to find out was Noam did not threaten or take legal action of any kind (instead he used the momentum to propel his career). Duane Lester of All American Blogger decided to go a different route and film his confrontation with the paper who plagiarized his work.
You can read Duane's full article on his site here. I'm all for upholding copyright and believe those who copy and paste (or print and sell) other people's work should be held accountable. I'm not sure if showing up to the front door of a copyright violator and filming the incident is necessarily the best thing to do but that is exactly what happened in this case. Duane marched into The Oregon Times Observer and demanded that the publication of his original written piece be paid for on the spot. After some hesitation, the newspaper wrote Mr. Lester a check for $500 which might have been a small price to pay compared to the full legal battle that could have ensued.
After watching this video, it made me think, if I was faced with having to deal with a copyright infringement suit, could I ever stoop to this level? It might be easy to say "no" but without having been in Duane Lester's shoes, maybe I'd be surprised by my own actions to mend such a wrong doing. What do you guys think after watching this? Are Lester's actions commendable or did he exploit this old man in a similar way his own article was exploited?
P.S. John, the navigation on your site sucks balls and everything smells like LightRoom throw up :)
Do you really think making fun of my site is going to get to me? Grow up; you look petty.
Actually no you are wrong and a complete asshole John. That is the reason video release forms were invented. Because people can sue videographers for publishing their image without consent.
Ever see people's faces blurred out in the background of a documentary or interview? Well thats because they either didnt want to be published or the producers were unable to get them to sign a release.
Please leave the site now you immature internet troll.
Hush now
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! IT SEEMS WE HAVE SHUT THE TROLL UP! Your lack of smarmy, arrogant and whiny retort signals that the message has finally sunk in, that you Sir Godwin have finally come to the realization that you are a professional ass-hat, and the only thing you have contributed to this site is a bad smell.
Go away little boy
Good lord, you are one of the stupidest people I've ever encountered.
I'm afraid the "hush now" comment came third in the line of replies to you, at which point I'd got a bit creeped out by your meltdown. One that appears to be continuing.
Please don't misconstrue my boredom as a submission to your wily intellect and keen argumentative style. That would be a far stretch for even my staunchest opponent, given that you're quite clearly an idiot.
I see no meltdown at all, it was apparent that i prematurely celebrated your departure from shitting on the message boards, guess i was wrong and you're merely a bigger idiot than i first assumed.
You clearly enjoy the sound of your own voice and lucky for us we cant hear or smell the bullshit over the Internet that you continue to plague us with.
It has been voiced by more than one person that YOU are the idiot and that even the writers dont care if you fuck off and die in the coldest lonely corner of your computer.
Your life entails reveling in your self indulgent bullshit babble. You're a professional asshole here and on your own site, and it speaks volumes that you're just as terrible of a person in all facets of life.
I'm sure you could go on for days with your sarcastic and pompous retorts that just tickle your balls in delight, but at the end of the day, you're just another e-thug typing angry words on the Internet. It further speaks volumes of yourself that you clearly don't give a fuck that you tarnish your own name and website and "business" by continuing to display your immature and most of all arrogant persona for all the world to see.
Please, call me an idiot again, you're clearly out of ideas and "witty" bullshit. You're a scum bag and a piece of shit and i hope you wind it back in before all of your clients truly realize how much of a douche you are.
Take care shnookums, only mummy loves you
Definitely a meltdown.
Definitely a petulant idiot ^^. Thanks for coming out
I think it is a little sad all the way around. I liked the old mans spit and tenacity, but he really should have not snagged someones work. In fact I don't think he would have cut the check if he had not done it himself.
Yes it's sad all around. I see both sides but I think both handled it poorly to begin with, the old man only wised up when he saw he was on camera but Duane could have not been so confrontational in how he brought this to the paper's attention. No one likes to be backed into a corner and most people, given the change, will come to reasonable terms on their own...if not that's what the courts are for, and then take him for way more than is warranted :)
I don't understand how beating around the bush and indirect communication that could lead to the infringer spending a lot more money is a better solution than direct resolution? This approach saved time, money, and who knows how many other resources. I think you're letting the newspaper staff's age affect the facts of the matter. But then again, you being based in Charleston means you probably respect your elders more than we manner-less Northerners, lol. I have to disagree with you that most people will come to reasonable terms on their own. I consider myself an optimist, but from my experience in business, if people can get the milk without buying the cow, they will.
Wow Rob don't be a douche about it... you the man Patrick
one of my old comments wasn't posted for saying much less than the things that were said above.
Obviously different admin tonight. >:(
I've never had a local company nip my work but I think they would get a letter and a bill before they saw my ugly mug walk threw their doors with a <strike>Baseball bat</strike> camera
we all copy, everybody copies. we should accept that. but still, its mr. duane's hardwork.
Maybe I should go to Syria and Dubai with a video camera and confront the people who used my scream self portrait. Oh wait. yeah nevermind, i rather stay alive.
I totally support what the guy did. He was professional and cordial. The bottom line is this, the paper STOLE something. We have devalued professions that don't produce a physical product (photographers, writers, programmers, etc.) to the point where we think it is ok to take without regard of payment. If I go into a clothing store and steal a bar of candy, do they send me a letter asking for payment? Do they request I give it back? Hell no. They call the cops and I go to jail.
I would feel totally different about this if the blogger was rude and combative. He wasn't. In fact, the paper was rude and combative. Do you think sending a letter to this guy 15 times would have done a lick? When he dose nothing with the letters you've got to call a lawyer. You have lawyer fees. This drags on for months. Finally he gets his check. How many hours of work has he put into pursuing this guy for payment when that time could have been spent writing more articles?
This is the great thing about having rights, you can exercise them if you want to. The issue I have is when they are taken away. Good job for him for getting paid, I am sure it sold some ads for the paper. So be thankful we have these in place, I am sure if a big company took your photo and made some dollars on it you all would reach out to them. If you don't want to use them then don't, but don't get mad at someone else for using these.
LOVE IT. Seems like most companies would rather pay lawyers than the people they harm... at some point people have to realize that published material is not free for the taking... like leaving the keys in my car on the street... might not be smart but if it gets taken - it's still theft.
BTW - Patrick's "could I ever stoop to this level?" seems odd to me. "STOOP" to the level of asking for payment of your work? Stand up for your rights and be glad for others who are willing to do so.
I'd like to know if any of the poeple throwing insults around up there EVER downloaded a song from Napster, limewire or other... or used bit torrent in a less than legal way....
If so, please just shut up. I'm pretty sure no one is clean of stealing in the digital age so stop acting like you never done it.
I do agree with your comment, however I do believe there is a slight difference, with taking that song then re-selling it. Making money from someone's work. The paper made money off his write up from ads, readers.. etc...
But yes I am working on using free content more, there are some great artist out there that want you to have their music and share it.
I'd reply by saying the law makes no difference if you still to resell or fr your self... at least in Canada. You get additionnal charges filled but the stealing on its own is the same....
their accents are awesome!!
I'm blown away that some folks are making excuses for the old guy.
It doesn't matter how many times something has made the rounds on the internet, wrong is wrong.
The old guy was not exploited in any way. He was made to pay for something that he had stolen. Justice done in my opinion. The copyright holder should not have been made to hunt down his money.
It's easy I think to feel like it's not a big deal, until it happens to you, with a piece of work that you put effort into, and then the mind changes quick-like.
this is awesome
The elderly folks have had a seemingly lengthy history in the newspaper business. Plagiarism wouldn't fly back then and it certainlyshould not now. Let's hope Duane had releases signed for filming these two without their permission. Perhaps he would have been been better off writing an article about it if he wanted to spread the word.
Well written articles are opinion less or rather more specifically bias less . However, it really depends on the type of article you are writing and the expertise of the writer. This is a site not written by professional writers so I do not hold them to the same standards I hold for information I've bought and paid for.
Well the camera man was on the street (public property) and was recording what can be seen from the public view so legally the camera is legit. What I worry about it that he obviously had a mic on-person so that the conversation could be recorded. Some states have a law that states in private property, both parties of the conversation must consent to being recorded so if he is one of those states, he could be sued for illegal wiretapping.
It's hard to say how I would react to something like this... I constantly find my photos being posted to little kid's tumblr blogs with no credit or anything. I used to get pissed. Now on the flip side of that, none of these kids with these tumblr blogs
are turning a profit off of publishing my stuff to their blogs, so what
recourse do I really need to take? I realized that getting mad at every kid who did it would never stop the problem, so now I am just happy my work circulates, whether or not I am credited.
Adversely, if my work was published to a newspaper, or a major media outlet without my knowledge or consent, I would certainly seek out some sort of compensation for my work. I honestly believe that this guy was in the right. He didn't go into the office and flip out, he didn't lose his cool, he was calm and composed and just stated the facts. The older gentleman was obviously flustered and pissed off, but he was truly in the wrong which was why he just cut him a check, because he knew he didn't have a leg to stand on in this situation.
As to the notion that he should have wrote a letter and waited for a response, I think the way he handled it in the best way possible, well aside from the guy with the camera. Clearly he benefited double by bringing the friend to document it all because he also generated more content for his blog. Regardless of that, I think a direct approach is the best approach. No one sought him out for even so much as a credit, so why should he give them the courtesy of a letter?
In a slightly related incident, I once went to a hardcore punk show and shot some photos of some bands. Years later I saw one of my photos on one of the band's T-Shirts, their records, their tour flyers, their website and more. I sent the band an email expressing that they were legally in the wrong for taking my work off of flickr and printing it and using it to sell their merchandise without my written consent. You know what I got back from said band? A long winded email telling me I was a piece of shit because I didn't support DIY hardcore punk. I then wrote them back explaining that no matter what their opinion of me was, I showed up to their show, took photos for free of their band, put their photos online, and promoted them as artists through my medium, without asking for a penny because this was a passion of mine (sounds pretty DIY to me). (mind you, this was a small venue, with no policy on photography, and when I checked with my friend who booked them, I asked if they had a rider discussing their policy on photography; they did not. So legally I could take photos within the venue without any hassle as long as the owner/manager/band/tour manager said nothing, which no one ever did). I then proceeded to tell them that normally when a small band emails me and asks me for the rights to use my photos on their merch I ALWAYS say yes as long as I am credited in liner notes on a CD or record, or if it is something like a t-shirt, all I want in payment is a shirt mailed to me with the photo on it for my own mementos. I explained to them that I didn't seek to profit off their band but rather just wanted some common professional courtesy when it came to the use of my work to benefit them. When I explained the certain legalities of it all, they changed their tune very quickly. I then received a very long winded apology and a request for my address so they could send me some stuff. I never replied, I just wanted to make my point.
The digital era is a very tricky era for publishing work. With things like flickr, google, bing, 500px, vimeo, youtube, and more it is very easy to take someone's stuff and try to pass it off as your own, or think they will never notice. I think at the end of the day though, if you are going to profit off of someone else's work, in my opinion, you should be contacting them to get their consent and figure out what they might want for compensation, if anything at all. Not only is it the polite and respectful thing to do, but it is also the right thing to do to cover your butt legally.
/end rant
"After watching this video, it made me think, if I was faced with having
to deal with a copyright infringement suit, could I ever stoop to this
level?" Seriously, he "stoop" to act on his rights? I really don't see why people are sad for the old man when he wrote the check because he knew he was wrong and stole the work (why he wrote the check). A friendly letter... please that at most wouldn't have yielded anything more then a smart ass reply (like the comment on the check he wrote). If your going to push this stuff you have to be firm and direct. The guy was calm, confronted the thief and laid it out. What is wrong with that?
This guy runs a blog and even if they wrote his name on the piece it's not going to open HUGE doors for him at that little paper (two very different business models). The paper benefited from the article not the writer and he had every right to call them on it.
I think the ones who are sad for the old man are also the ones who feel for the house robber when he breaks a leg trying to break into the house he's robbing, then tried to sue the homeowner for medical after he's been caught! lol What is WRONG WITH PEOPLE???
Yes, he is an old man, and old people deserve respect, but it doesn't mean they can ignore laws.
What I see, is that Duane is calm the whole time, he actually speaks with them in a normal tone, doesn't shout or anything, while the old man raises his voice, and treats Duane in a phlegmatic way, like he was thinking "Who the hell YOU think you are kid, to tell me what to do?!"
From the very beginning the old man has the wrong attitude. Also, notice that he had to THINK for quite some time, before he could actually come up with "it is all over the Internet" - it might be that he is just old and his memory is not as good anymore, but as well it could be that he was trying to make up an excuse on the spot.
They are a small local paper, and what that means? It means, that if they take something from the net, the CHANCES that the original author ever learns about it, are small. And the chances that an author would take the effort to contact them, is even smaller. So it looks like to me, they simply thought, that they can get away with just taking anything they want, because they are a small local paper. And if this is the case, this is absolutely WRONG.
Notice how aggressive the woman becomes about the camera when she realizes that the recording is going to be a proof of what happened. She realizes right there, that they are caught.
What I see in the end, is that the old man is pretty clearly understanding he was doing wrong all the time, was just trying to get away.
When Duane mentioned copying over the typos, he realizes that it is way to clear proof, and instantly changes in attitude, stops trying to get away but writes the paycheck.
To sum up: I partially understand that small local papers don't have the time and energy to look up and trace back things, and that they might think it isn't such a big deal to print 100 copies of something from the net.
So what would have I done in Duane's boots? Well, entirely depends on how the editor would have reacted.
If he was apologetic, telling that he is very sorry, but he found it on the net without attribution and was unable to trace it back (though it is just as hard as copy-pasting some lines into Google Search!!!!!), and seems to be HONEST about it, convincing me that he didn't want to do harm, just didn't know better I would have said: "Well, alright... Please in the next issue, post a well visible correction notice about that you failed to correctly attribute me, and give a link to my blog. And then we can forget about it, just next time lease ask me first."
But he was not apologetic. He did know he was wrong. He tried to make up excuses... and in this case, I would have made him pay as well. Because it is not the act of copying the article, but the motives and attitude is that deserves to be punished.
Well done, Duane.
P.s.: I am a supporter of the freedom of information. I absolutely approve "fair use", and actually think copyright laws need to be lightened in many cases, to help the free flow of information. But I would never tolerate willful abuse.
Stupid old rednecks, haha! I would have wanted more than $500.
He was in his right, he did the right thing.
If this was a stolen photo, and if you belong to any photo organizations like the ASMP, or the APA you would have done the same exact thing. This is how people make a living, it's nothing personal its just business.
ah Mark you make sense until you uttered the most detested phrase ever "nothing personal, just business" If a person does it - it's personal! It's more often men who utter this ridiculous phrase - it's just an excuse to act inappropriately.
Of COURSE it's personal, that's his work, his time, his art......... it also happens to be business but it is very personal, which is what drove him to confront these people.
Good onya mate ! Should of taken him and all the others who printed it to court and taught them all an expensive lesson. He knew what he was doing.
Why is everyone being so unreasonably rude to Patrick? The man in the video was justified to be upset, but also could have been kinder. They did violate him, but he was a little forward. But I am happy that he got what he wanted and deserved for his work. Not sure what I would do in this situation. Thanks for posting this interesting video Patrick!
Patrick has the right to express his opinion, so if you disagree, do so respectfully.
I wouldn't say that this is how I would deal with a copyright infringement situation. That being said, I don't feel that the business owner would have simply cut the writer a cheque for $500 had he received a letter asking for payment. I do, however, think the writer should have been less accusatory initially in case the business owner was in fact a reasonable person.
Not sure what the fuss is here. Duane Lester wrote a piece and published it in his blog. A newspaper plagiarized it (I'm assuming that they typically pay their writers). Mr. Lester was not out of line in requesting payment...he was calm and polite and professional. The fact that payment was made was admission by the paper that they were in the wrong and they wanted to avoid any further action on Mr. Lester's part... Done!
It actually doesn't really matter if they changed some parts of it. If the paper is passing it off as their own writing, in whole *or in part*, it's plagiarism. That guy is an a-hole and he got busted, there is no question about it. I used to do freelance writing and the companies I worked for were VERY strict with the sources we used and even paraphrasing was frowned upon if the writers didn't change the wording enough. The equivalent of this in the photography world is when someone takes one of your images and maybe crops it or puts some kind of border or crappy vignette on it and claims it as their own. Is it any less wrong than stealing your image and claiming it as theirs without altering it? Nope. It's still a copyright violation.
Wow..i dont lame him for being pissed and doing this. thats fucked up. id Be so pissed!