Man Steals Image, Gets Sued, Calls Photographer 'Malicious'

You may or may not know that I occasionally write satirical articles for Fstoppers. This is not one of those articles. An Internet "entrepreneur" was sued for using a copyrighted image, and he now claims the photographer who sued him was "malicious" for doing so.

While there's some nuance to copyright law, the basic idea that you can't just take an image you found on Google and use it for commercial purposes is generally pretty well understood, especially by those who work on the Internet. Nonetheless, Internet Entrepreneur Dan Dasilva did just that, using images he lifted from a Google image search in his Shopify store, and was subsequently sued, settling for $27,000 plus about $10,000 in legal fees. Open and shut enough of a case, right? Not so for Dasilva, who then took to his YouTube channel, making a video in which he acknowledges that he should have known better, but still calls the photographer "malicious" for daring to protect their copyright and vaguely implies that his followers should track down the person in the hopes it will ruin their reputation. He then goes on to make an entirely irrelevant comparison by examining transformative artistic work, which of course has nothing to do with simply lifting an image from Google and using it in a commercial context. Dasilva even says he still does this in the above video, despite having just been sued for that practice.

Of course, while someone who runs an Internet store should definitely know better, it's not the ignorance that's the most infuriating so much as the arrogance and entitlement coupled with the disrespect for an image creator's property. It's unfortunately not the first time I've seen this attitude, and while I can't attribute it to any particularly obvious single source, it is an unfortunate part of our culture. Let's hope that the perception of creators being malicious is transformed into respect for the hard work they put in. 

Log in or register to post comments

45 Comments

Previous comments

hopefully, when he grows up, he'll be embarrassed.

It's good your showing this-helps intellectual property victims understand the arrogance and mindset of infringers (thieves).

Michael Kormos's picture

Ehm, having a YouTube channel doesn't make one an entrepreneur. Especially when you use it as a means to complain. It just makes you a good whiner.

Glad the thief was nailed for this theft.
Google is part of the problem. You see an image and there is NO metadata to help in tracking or finding the creator. Google removes all contact information - including Copyright information. Actually, a violation of Copyright laws. Hope someone goes after them on it.
As for the thief crying because he was caught. Too bad the FBI won't step up and prosecute him - as they would for Disney Corp.

Robert Nurse's picture

When you plan to use any resource for profit, always assume a copyright exists. Not being able to find the author is no excuse as this guy found out. LOL, the author will find you! I also found it comical how he showed disdain for the methods used by photographers to locate intellectual property thieves.

Jason Lorette's picture

I couldn't even watch the whole video, this guy is a twerp. Oh feel sorry for me! God, his attitude is so piss poor, what other bad advice has he given people!?

Alex Cooke, could you please name the photographer who successfully sued you. I would like to thank and congratulate him/her. I am a photographer who makes my living taking photographs and selling them. I guess you could call me malicious because I would happily sue you if you stole my work. What makes you think that you time is wiporth thousands, but the photographer’s image and their Tim is worth nothing. Pay up. Apologize. Keep you fingers crossed you don’t get sued for your rant. Learn your lesson.dont be a jerk (again)

Alex Cooke's picture

...you know that's not me in the video, right?

Rex Jones's picture

Is your entire comment hinged on the title for the article alone. Did you not take enough time to read past the first sentence to see that the article is written about a man named Dan Dasilva who got sued by an anonymous photographer? Second paragraph, homie. The article quite clearly states the name of the person, who created the problem, in the second paragraph. In addition, did the fact that the article was written in third person not tip you off?

Ben Pearse's picture

Wow, this guys hilarious

I like how he rolls up the sleeves - of his short sleeve shirt - at the beginning of the video.

o_0

Edwin A's picture

He has a lack of respect for the photographers time, He gives no value for the time it took the photographer to create the image he stoled , but has the audacity to put a price for time he spent on dealing with the court situation. Because his time is money,

Jake Olson, Prince... now this one, I think the best explanation of this behavior is in this movie: http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0125664/
Sorry for bad English ✌

Chris Rogers's picture

Pro tip: Don't steal images. It's bad news bears.

Devaughney Samuels's picture

This guy missed the whole point and actually playing the victim like the photographer is wrong for suing him for using their image without consent to make money.
"Do you know how bad that it would look for his brand"
Doesn't he know it would look bad for him and he's the one that LOST the case!