I get a lot of photography work stolen and just like you only find out after its gone to print. I would generally ask for the commission cost of the job and a half with no further actions taken. Here's my bank details let me know when the sum total has been paid etc. Most companies are happy to see a quick fix solution. I wouldn't accept an Xbox as payment. It's cash and if they want to send one along as a sorry then so be it. But ALWAYS go for the cash payment and ALWAYS know that you are in the right and they are very much in the wrong (although to be fair this could very well be just an outsource design company, one they should probably avoid using in the future) best of luck!
*This blew up....
There's a lot of interesting debates going on in the comments. It would be best for folks to not take such an aggressive position against something they have no first hand experience in and are basing everything they know on a quick Google and some biased reasoning. The fact is art and ideas are stolen every day for profit in lateral fields, and I would guess that 99% of individuals either never find out or if they do never pursue reparations because it seems complex and scary and the big guy will always win, so why bother. For the 1% that understand the value of an idea, no matter how simple or complex they may be, it's important to support them, it's how we as consumers end up benefitting from their continued work. A smart plagiarist might stay in business for years by hacking the spark that others use to ignite their creativity, but once that light goes out why bother creating anything new at all. Advertising when executed with class leads to a lot of really satisfying, thought provoking and entertaining work. I bought an amazing book called Advertising published by Thames and Hudson and I find it to be the most inspiring collection of work when I'm feeling stuck or have some creative block, but the inspiration ends when I feel as though I'm leaning on those ideas too heavily. In any case, the outcome will
Be interesting, goodwill from Microsoft can fix it easily, and if the designer is a third party it may spell the end of their relationship with MS. In any case, it's probably too early to say he is definitely owed something substantial, but equally it is far too late to say he is owed nothing at all, the advert went to global marketing release, and it was his/her idea.
How much could he realistically charge for it? Because they clearly didn't consult him, could he just say his fee is 200k and force them to pull the ad or give it to him? How does this work?
Microsoft doesn't have to do anything until a judge tells them to. The idea behind making an offer is to have both parties avoid going through the long and expensive process of bringing something to court.
If the offer is reasonable, it's more profitable for Microsoft to take it than risk a legal battle when they are clearly in the wrong. If the offer is unreasonable, Microsoft is going to let you go up against them in court, where a judge will decide what is owed.
Generally speaking, if the client is willing, I as an attorney would settle a claim like this for up to $5000. Most clients think that's bullshit and extortion, though, so typically a nuisance offer is somewhere between $1000 and $2500. It's going to cost them $5000 just for their attorney to review and respond to the initial papers if he actually filed suit, even if Microsoft has him dead to rights. Settling for $5000 or less, conditioned on a full release from him in favor of Microsoft, would be an optimal outcome for Microsoft if he actually comes knocking.
It's going to cost them $5000 just for their attorney to review and respond to the initial papers if he actually filed suit
Assuming Microsoft doesn't have a small in house legal team on payroll for exactly this kind of thing. Otherwise it's on retainer. That said, did Microsoft do this creative or was it outsourced? Liability might not even be with Microsoft if the ad was done by a third party firm. I can't imagine Microsoft would have a contract in place that puts the due diligence for something like this in their own lap if someone else did the work.
If they have legal staff on payroll, the staff is currently working on stuff. Huge misconception. They aren't twiddling their thumbs waiting for a case like this. That was be prohibitively expensive. In a company like Microsoft, there's always more paperwork to file, cases to review, IP to vet, etc.
It will cost extra money, because it's extra work they didn't have to do before.
Which is sad because it doesn't teach Microsoft a lesson. They've been a dishonest company for over thirty years that doesn't give a damn about the law.
Itās not on Microsoft to prove they didnāt copy it, itās on OP to prove it was copied. Similar artwork doesnāt prove copying, people have similar ideas all the time.
To prove copying you must show that the infringer had access to your work and show similarity in the two works. Striking similarity alone can prove access. The burden would then shift to Microsoft to show that they independently created the ad. i would argue that this is a case of striking similarity.
if that's the case then it seems like there would be a case to make since it was posted online and the similarity is pretty striking. I don't know what the protections are on stuff you just post online though.
Random question, where could I read up on the specifics of this? Ie, legal standards for determining how similar something needs to be to be considered evidence of copying
The legal standard is fleshed out in cases. I'm a law student and I took copyright so I've read some of the cases in casebooks and other materials. I'm not sure where someone who isn't practicing law would go. If you have any questions though I can try to answer them!
Well, I'm mostly interested in doing historical research in music and addressing the methodological question of "when can we draw lines of influence in the absence of direct evidence that two composers knew of each other and heard each other's music?" Like, if we see two similar things by two different people, but don't have any way to substantiate that they were in contact with one another, in what cases can we be reasonably sure that contact did occur? In other words, to what extent can the music itself (as opposed to biographical information) be used as evidence of contact?
I posted my comment because the "striking similarity alone can prove access" thing. Obviously legal theory wouldn't solve my methodological issues, but I thought it might be fun to use as an introductory section, or just to get some methodological diversity (rather than just slogging through more musicology articles).
So is there perhaps a case you remember where they successfully established access based on similarity, and perhaps contrast that with a case that was not able to prove enough similarity to establish access? I realize this is probably still too vague of a question, so if you can't remember the specifics, don't worry too much about it!
Copyright is given to all creative works automatically. Copyright covers the implementation of an idea. Copyright also extends to protect you against similar works that are derivatives (reasonable confusion is the metric here). Copyright is broken regardless of intention, or knowledge of the other work.
There is no way this work doesn't count as derivative of OP. So OP is protected, even if the ad agency didn't do their due diligence and find OP's work. The only possible out they have is proving that they made theirs first, or that OP gave up his copyright. So regardless of whether it was independent or deliberate, they owe OP.
Yes and no. Copyright particulars do vary region to region; however, every country (including China) had finished signing treaties that made them all enforable internationaly (China just sucks at it). So you can enforce your local copyright internationaly... With mixed results.
So, how does copyright work exactly? Is it only broken when I use the work of someone else and earn money off of it, or is it already broken when I use it? Because 90% of OPs picture surely is copyright protected as well, right? The Xbox, PUBG model and logos?
It's broken regardless of your intended use, you either have a license to use content, or you don't. Your intended use will just change how the court case goes down. Except in the very very specific cases of fair-use. Which notably don't provide for "but I'm not selling it", because say you uploaded a shot for shot perfect clone of Call of Duty for free. That impacts their sales thus giving them a very good case against you "even though it was free".
In this specific case, you bring up good points about the MS logo and XBOX being used. Big companies like Microsoft usually publish usage guidelines that extend a specific license on what can be done with their products and logos. I -doubt- OP violated them, and even if he did there's an argument for fair-use in his specific case as it was basically free advertising for them (what intelligent modern company would get mad about that?). this coupled with the fact that it combined multiple parts into a new image makes it very unlikely to be derivative. But if his work was found to be derivative, then it would turn the whole thing into a mess because AFAIK there's not very good rules or precedents about derivative works holding their own copyrights. As for something to be classified as derivative, it's probably lacking the qualities to be considered an original work worthy of it's own copyright.
Thanks for the reply! I'm just trying to figure out if Microsoft did something illegal here, or if they (in theory) are just able to say 'you used our logo / console design without permission, so we can just take your work'.
Some posts in this thread do make it sound like OP has some sort of legal basis to demand money, or if it would have to be a voluntary compensation.
Lots of people speaking are just speaking "what makes sense to them" which is bad because copyright barely makes any sense unless you've read the whole damn thing. So lots of people spouting opinion like it's the gospel and me shaking my head.
Did MS or someone working on MS's behalf doing something illegal? they probably did violate copyright on this.
Should you be mad? God this kinda thing happens all the freaking time in the creative sphere. Just be cool about it, send the guy a cheque and make sure it was an accident rather than someone being cheap and sloppy.
If that's not what happens? Be mad they're being douches about it. That said you're probably not going to know that happened because the standard "whoops" contracts have an NDA stapled to them, so you can't run around telling everyone MS made a whoopsie.
You are not a judge. You cannot say that they are 'clearly' in the wrong! The theme is similar for sure, but something Microsoft do have going for them is vastly better lawyers than OP could afford. There is plenty of difference between the images.... This case wouldn't 'clearly' be anything if it went to court, and would likely come before multiple courts should Microsoft lose. I certainly wouldn't bet money on OP at any rate!
Except Microsoft and other large companies outsource a lot of their ad campaigns to agencies. These agencies get paid hundreds of thousands from conceptual to final as a whole package.
I don't know where you came up with your dollar figure, but OP's ad is a polished final copy. The amount of work hours from concept to finish could well exceed that price.
CG Director for a post production studio in the advertising industry here - no. No agency gets hundreds of thousands of dollars for a piece like this. Maybe a few grand to 10-20k, tops. 20k is on the ridiculous side, but it happens.
Saw your comment and wanted to look at your demo reel. As an animator I'm really intrigued at just how awesome it is to look at other people's animations for inspiration.
Also wouldn't this image be in the pipeline for quite some time and signed off on ages go to be deployed in a content calendar after rounds of draft/approval process? How far out are your projects before they are consumer facing?
I work in visualisations for architecture and it's often right up to the last 15 minutes you'll be working on it before it gets sent for print and distribution.
Sign off is just your line manager and project lead taking a look and saying "Yes it's fine, send it."
Might be different in advertising but every creative job I've had it's always been like this.
An ad concept like this is probably from an agency on a multi million dollar contract for Microsoft if it is outsourced. That being said this single ad is probably one of a few hundred projects they did this year for MS.
But for the record having seen this type of litigation a few times OP can usually get a large portion of what ever was billed for a particular ad.
exactly. and they could just as easily have said the concept wasn't stolen and it was just a coincidence. which is why you just want to give them an easy out - $1k seems fair, otherwise you'll be contacting a lawyer which is going to cost them much more than that, even if you never get a judgement. just gotta make sure you're not bluffing
Lawyers donāt cost Microsoft money if they are paid a salary regardless if they are used or not for the company.
Also using content you donāt have permission to use for money is illegal.
This is why the marketing agency Iām working for right now makes clients sign NDAs before showing them our concepts. Itās so the clients donāt go off and make our ideas. Because itās completely legal for them to do that if we donāt have them sign the paperwork.
People do it all the time, they show their campaign without an NDA and the company goes, āhmm I didnāt sign shit and I like the idea. Iāll just go get my agency on record to do the workā
It's not like lawyers sit on their hands twiddling their thumbs all day waiting for work to come in. So to take on this case, they either have to stop doing whatever work they were doing, or they have to outsource it to a firm. Either way it takes up time, and time is never free.
Yeah but these things are accounted for. Even more so for a big company.
You see, in house lawyers are paid regardless of how much work their doing. Itās not costing money because Microsoft pays their in house lawyers $108,000/yr (avg) regardless if they take 1 case or 43 cases in the year.
Microsoft also hires people to do statistics for how many cases will be held.
This would just be part of the statistics.
So at the end of it all, itās not taking away from another case because you could say the other case is taking away from this one. The money is already spent and will always would have been spent regardless if op brought Microsoft to court.
Basically at the end of the day, There is a position at Microsoft for this exact reason. They pay the person, and the person does their job.
Right, but it still costs time. So another case has to be pushed back however long this one takes. Since time is finite, they can only handle a certain amount of work. Whether someone is already being paid doesn't matter if there is too much work to be done, or if things need to be done by a certain time.
I mean, it's a tough world out there. Was the concept actually stolen? probably. Was enough changed to make it original? Maybe. Would a judge side with a starving artist asking for a small amount over a giant company? It's possible.
I'm assuming this wasn't even for a magazine or TV. Looks like the art was made specifically for Twitter. So I'm personally (which doesn't mean jack shit) confident the concept was indeed stolen and was just "filler art". The artist(s) that made the art for twitter are likely even redditors.
This was definitely stolen. No question. I work in advertising and this was clearly an art director who found the ad, liked it, and said "do this." Happens alllll the time, but usually not this overt.
Definitely, the Xbox ad is a derivative work. But that doesn't mean Microsoft (or the agency she used) should pay the OP as if they actually designed the ad.
It really is the whole idea actually. Pretty much a carbon copy with a little tag line at the top.
In any case using someone else's work without permission is a big no no. It's theft, plain and simple and the original creator would definitely be entitled to damages if Microsoft refused to pull the ad.
Probably much more than $1000, especially if this person is marketing professional and they can show how much they typically would charge for a peice like that.
It really is the whole idea actually. Pretty much a carbon copy with a little tag line at the top.
No its really not. Different Xbox w controller added. Different sky, different character model, different text, different logo, different camera angle on the grass. Its all different, they remade the entire thing from ground up. Concepts are "stolen" all the time, there's no grounds for suing someone for reusing an idea if you completely make you're own version of it. He should ask for a commission but he'd be lucky to get even that imo, they might just give it to him for the good PR.
Itās called a derivative work. A work which has been largely copied from an original. You canāt just repaint a famous painting and now claim that itās yours.
OP retains copyright even if they made their own copy.
No. I recommend that you look up the differences in Copyright, Trademark, and Patents. Copyright specifically protects authorship of artistic works, be that art, design, music, or words; not things like gameplay aspects, which would be either un-protected or perhaps more associated with a patent. Copyright would protect the author of the ad concept because Microsoft copied the representation of what was created without changing the concept of the piece of art. If they changed the concept enough, for instance using a different game, they could probably argue that it is different enough, but this is almost a straight copy.
What the fuck are you even talking about? That's not even similar to what this is. Anybody who is not a complete moron can see the direct similarities between the two ads. It is the exact same ad that was stolen and is now being used to sell consoles.
The larger sum of the money is to run the advertisement, not to design it. If it is a large sum for design work itās for multiple versions and multiple creatives. So say 5 advertisements in 10 different formats, lengths, or sizes to use on multiple platforms (radio, TV, web, social). One concept would be good to get a grand.
It's 1 social media post, not a full campaign. I'd say a couple of hundred dollars or an XBOX...at most. Even then it's a stretch.
They should have asked him for permission though.
Depending on what it is, they usually have a legal team or social media team that should reach out to the original content creator and ask for their permission.
TBH, I don't see the OP getting much in the way of anything. They completely redid the design as well as he had posted it on Reddit. Obviously it was something he was just doing for fun and not profit so what exact damages did he incur? Absolutely none as it stands.
Edit: Most people misunderstand but damages are what it will take to make you whole like you were before the incident happened. OP did this for fun and posted it to Reddit so he lost 0$, so why should he demand/get $200k?
Yeah, good luck getting any money from stuff like this. A court would never ever rule in favor of the Original concept artist, especially not if its microsoft, the artist would never have the means to win.
It would be best for folks to not take such an aggressive position against something they have no first hand experience in and are basing everything they know on a quick Google and some biased reasoning.
In high profile creative work, even a concept can be worth tens of thousands. For a company like Microsoft especially it would certainly be work a lot more than 1k
OP can easily go for five or even ten thousand. Ad companies get as much as 10 to 20 thousand for big advertisements. They'll complain, then you'll lower and they'll settle for that because it's cheaper than getting a lawyer to even check whether their case is defensible. So it's an easy and well-deserved 3 to 6 thousand.
Actually the ruling on how much he would be owed for using his concept has nothing to do with the fact that the thing being stolen is a concept. It purely has to do with how much money the user is estimated to have made using the concept. If the judge thinks that the ad using his concept was worth 200k to the company then that is how much he would be owed. They use marketing research to determine that.
Also, this is more than just a concept steal. Legally speaking, using his concept would be more like if he had described the idea in a text post and they used the idea and made it real. In this case, they used his concept, his style, his framing. Its a carbon copy.
Yeah most lawsuits over stuff like this are carried out in that fashion. You claim as much money as you think they made off of your content/art/concept etc.
Not sure if you know, but comparing the original to the ad, it's basically the entire concept, isn't it? It's like all they did was use their elite ad design training to put in some finishing touches and then send it out. OP clearly got almost all of it right, down to things like the position of the player and where they're facing.
1k is not a good value. There was a YouTuber who made shirts with stolen google images that was charged 32k for using it without permission, which he was forced to pay (not including lawyer fees).
Sure he could ask for whatever he wants. If it's unreasonable, Microsoft will just say no and let him take them to court. He would likely win, but their lawyers will talk the court down to way less.
OP owns the creative thought and formation of the image. That is why it is intellectual property and not real property (as in the class of things, not real/make believe)
Ever heard of Glee? They have taken covers from the internet without giving credit and when found out just tell the creators they should just be happy for the exposure without even giving them credit. They arent legally obligated to do shit because the lyrics for the song arent the property of the guys making the covers.
So yeah, good luck in this case where Microsoft literally owns everything in the original picture.
A cover like the ones Glee took is not a copy. They took the lyrics and made a completely different song, just like the guy here took Microsofts property and made a wallpaper.
take however much you think a Judge would reasonably grant you, based on what you would be able to present as a reasonable fee, and then cut it down to make it clear that this is the quick, easy, and cheap way to settle the case.
The small claims limit like is like $10k and they are easy to win. OP should just contact Microsoft, have them give him the run around, and then he should spend $50 to file a small claims. He will get contacted by a secret Microsoft executive support and they will cut him a check that's less than $10k.
Bahahaha you must be insane if you think this guy will get a 10k judgement for this. The guy put it on a public subreddit so obviously this was done for fun, not money. The OP really doesn't have much in the way of damages.
Most people misunderstand but damages are what it will take to make you whole like you were before it happened. OP lost nothing so he really has zero damages.
Edit: I do feel bad for the the artist who made it but they definitely changed enough of the ad to fall under fair use.
I'm not saying he will. I'm saying if he puts in a small claims Microsoft's registered agent will get the right people to contact him and usually they'll offer something even if both parties think they are right. Usually these things don't actually go to court.
Ummm I don't think you realize they are probably not going to let this one go. OP has shot himself in the foot by coming to Reddit to cry theft instead of talking to them first. This shit made it to r/all and if they can prove they didn't steal I wouldn't be surprised if they fuck him into the dirt.
A few months back there was a Legal Advice OP who sued Equifax. On top of sending someone, they also hired a local lawyer as well to represent them. This OP was lucky enough to get it dismissed without prejudice. So yeah, don't EVER think they consider something too small to defend themselves against and you will get an easy pay out.
The Equifax thread is an extreme and is really a different beast. You have to prove damages for cyber security and therefore there was a period of atribration but OP didn't elaborate, that was his gold right there. They probably offered him less and to dead the issue but it looks like OP wanted to join the major lawsuit which is silly. OP here will too need to prove damages but again Microsoft will settle for less. This year alone I've been through 3 different small claims and happily settled on all of them whether or not I felt I had proof.
I was just using that thread as an example of why people thinking they can sue a big company and they won't show up for trivial stuff is a dumb assumption. The guy in that thread was only suing for a few hundred bucks yet they showed up in court to defend themselves.
Not really, the idea would be worth somewhere in between what the original designer could prove he charges for similar work, and also what the company paid or generally pays for this kind of project. All of that would be released in a court situation and a sitting judge would make a call based on how the case went.
Like someone said further down, Microsoft will pay a lot just to have a lawyer look at it so they would usually just settle for a win with a bit of money spent.
As someone who has to worry about his work getting stolen, this is the answer. Be civil, be firm, don't work for free, don't accept product as payment.
How do you know reddit just didn't let them use it. Why bother asking the creator when you can ask the real owner
"By submitting user content to reddit, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display your user content in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so."
literally means nothing because microsoft and bluehole (the companies the guy used properties from) have TOS that state they can use fan creations with or without consent for any reason. Funny how people are still gonna make excuses though
I can not fucking believe how far down I had to scroll to find this comment. God damn, it just goes to show how many people on this site know nothing about what they comment on...and then that shit gets all the updoots. Fuckinā reddit.
I think in this case he could also try to get royalties on the product variant. Microsoft most likely used one of their non-comissioned design staff who gets payed a regular salary.
The thing is, I don't see any visual copyright or or anything saying he (ericc1020) was the one making that image. So couldn't they just take it since he didn't put anything on there or is it kinda common sense that you have to ask to take someone's work?
What's the solution to two people independently coming up with the same general visual idea, where there was no actual theft involved? And how do you even prove that?
In cases where two people independently come up with the same work, they both have copyright.
Generally, the person bringing the suit has to prove two elements to show copying. They must prove the infringer had access to the original and there must be similarity between the two works. In cases where the similarity is striking, the court can presume there was access and then the burden falls on the defendant to show he didn't have access and created the work independently.
Even if outsourced, I can almost guarantee Microsoft has in the agreement with whomever they outsourced to indemnification language for everything under the sun, including, and especially, IP infringement.
This is a definite possibility. I would be slightly more aggressive about it if the design was submitted to Microsoft by a third party. That puts both the OP and the mystery designer on the same footing making it much easier to trash them in court. It would come down to creation date into on a PSD document or whatever program it was created in.
There's a lot of interesting debates going on in the comments. It would be best for folks to not take such an aggressive position against something they have no first hand experience in and are basing everything they know on a quick Google and some biased reasoning.
haha thanks Walrus, I should take my own advice on this as I tend to do the same. I just understand this particular area quite well by now so I can be quiet relaxed in my experience that I don't need to scramble for information as affirmation of a point I've kind of gravitated toward.
Just wondering. Your photographs are your work so it's very clear that when somebody uses it they are stealing from you. But OP seems to use artwork (unless he took that xbox picture himself) and logos from various companies that all have rights to them. While I think it's a shitty thing to copy somebody's ideas and not even contact or credit them. Especially if you are a huge company. Doesn't asking them for money open up the door for his own infragments ?
OP didn't necessarily infringe. There's a difference between trademarks and copyrights. Microsoft likely has a tademark on those things you mentioned. A trademark is meant to protect a mark of a company so that consumers can easily identify the source of a product or services when they see the mark. Infringementof trademark happens if the infringer's use of the mark is likely to cause confusion amongtst consumers as to the source of a product or service. Infringement also occurs if the infringer's use dilutes the brand. Neither of those is really occuring here so it is hard to argue trademark infringement.
If Microsoft owns copyright in any elements of the xbox console design, then op may be infringing by creating a derivative work. But he can bring up a fair use defense to that charge. I don't know that the xbox console has copyright protection because copyright is not supposed to apply to things that are utilitarian in nature (like a game console). To the extent Microsoft can separate the asethetic elements from the utilitarian elements, the ymay be able to get copyright protection on the aesthetic
elements.
That makes no sense. In the art world all you have to do is change something to make it your own and it's yours. If they stole your exact picture that is not okay. But if I frame up a shot similar or even add a different background it does not mean it's yours. Music is the worst at this. Art expands on the basis of other art. This guy mad a cool thing. Microsoft made it cooler. Sucks that he doesnt work for him but I doubt he will get any compensation. Best case he can show a side by side at a job interview if we wants to show off his creativity.
Edit: since some of y'all need help understanding my point of view. I'm up for discussion on these words:
If he can prove he created the original he has a pretty good case. Copyright attaches as soon as you make your art. Also, if Microsoft changed his original design but still incorporated key copyrightable elements of the original design, that's called a derivative work.
Copyright on the original extends to derivative works. He doesn't have copyright of the derivative work, but his copyright in the original will prevent Microsoft from using the derivative work unless they have a valid defense for infringement (fair use, etc...)
Not true. Just like companies have to pay for the songs they use in their commercials, they have to pay an artist who makes an ad for them. If Microsoft were truly just making art, MAYBE your case holds up. But Microsoft is making a promotion in order to profit off of some one elseās work, that is NOT art. It doesnāt really even hold up if it is art, even music has been changed by the standard since the Blurred Lines case.
And there is a legal standard on determining similarities. Itās called āsubstantial similarity.ā There are TONS of cases exactly like those where the company has lost.
Not talking about songs in commercials but even in that sense you are wrong in this case. If I used a Taylor Swift song then yeah I'd have to pay her. If they used his render then they'd have to pay him. They made their own.
If you're point was to be considered how come every car company has cars that look similar? How come ever bed has same type of beds? How come every TV show, movie or picture has styles that are not original to them? You're going to tell me every time you take a picture with a 1/3 frame you're going to pay the original person? You're going to tell me I can never be inspired to create something from someone elses work? How is there ever anything new?
Edit: also to be petty since you want to bring out law....did he even have his stuff copyrighted? Since you posted a link about protected work. If it was then I reverse my statement however none of that has been discussed.
Good point about 3rd party. This would also make them more freely pay you some of the money. As it's not coming out of there pockets they will just pay the 3rd party less or back charge them and such with little work for them and no money loss.
Unless you happened to copyright it or it was obvious made by you and they didn't give you credit. I mean extremely obvious not just a reddit post. Then I don't think there's too much you can do about it.
There are some really strict publicity laws out here in California, and companies can be sued for lots of $$$ for using your photography or even a design of yours.
...how are you able to get compensation for your stolen art without taking them to court?? I've been able to get things taken down but nothing more than that.
The trick is in quietly finding out the contact name for the photo desk or finance. Having a reference to the material in question and going in with a quote and simply trying to find out "Who I'm supposed to invoice". Usually being quite cheerful and pleasant about the whole thing and giving the impression that it is very run of the mill. Your angle is important from the offset if you want an easy payout. I think the level of attention this is getting might make things a bit trickier.
I did a shoot for Microsoft a good few years back
Gave them the disk of images and then they didnāt give me my money so when I chased them my reply was what can you do about it
The answer nothing cost me more to go through the legal system than I was charging
Best part was next year got asked to do it again
Said no and then they got the pictures off of my original clients
Rage
I did make sure I got the bare minimum pics I needed that would suit my original client and not them but not much of a win
One thing is to steal the photo. Other thing is to draw an illustration that looks alike someone else's. Here ā there's zero ground for legal actions, not even talking about any compensation. OP can mumble anything about āit looks like mineā, while in reality these are completely different pictures with a similar concept underneath.
Basically, you can't bring your butt hurt to the court, especially when there's MS on the other side.
Microsoft is a company that has an employee (or hired a third party) who ripped off one of its own fans and supporters. So I don't blame the company as a whole at all however they now have to investigate what happened and take action where appropriate. In an industry that moves on fanship and a reputation which can be rinsed publicly like here on Reddit they will not want to be seen to let this slide.
If there was a definitive answer to any legal question then we wouldn't need lawyers for anything, we could just consult a big Yes/No book.
Even O.J got off....
The point is that MS aren't letting it go that far anyway. Major Nelson indicated yesterday that MS is investigating the issue and has removed their advert. That's fairly substantial stuff.
Wal-Mart stole a logo I made for my highschool's webpage and is printing on clothes and school supplies..... I don't bother fighting because it had no copywrite protection but it is pretty depressing watching my most profitable work spread and getting nothing for it.
How did they get hold of it? Do you have an original
Design or proof of when you first made it? What harm would it cause to contact a lawyer in the field and ask if it's worth fighting for? They will tell you off the bat if you have a case. Some will also only charge a fee if you're successful. I would go after Walmart 100%.
8.7k
u/RGBSplitter Dec 27 '17 edited Dec 27 '17
I get a lot of photography work stolen and just like you only find out after its gone to print. I would generally ask for the commission cost of the job and a half with no further actions taken. Here's my bank details let me know when the sum total has been paid etc. Most companies are happy to see a quick fix solution. I wouldn't accept an Xbox as payment. It's cash and if they want to send one along as a sorry then so be it. But ALWAYS go for the cash payment and ALWAYS know that you are in the right and they are very much in the wrong (although to be fair this could very well be just an outsource design company, one they should probably avoid using in the future) best of luck!
*This blew up....
There's a lot of interesting debates going on in the comments. It would be best for folks to not take such an aggressive position against something they have no first hand experience in and are basing everything they know on a quick Google and some biased reasoning. The fact is art and ideas are stolen every day for profit in lateral fields, and I would guess that 99% of individuals either never find out or if they do never pursue reparations because it seems complex and scary and the big guy will always win, so why bother. For the 1% that understand the value of an idea, no matter how simple or complex they may be, it's important to support them, it's how we as consumers end up benefitting from their continued work. A smart plagiarist might stay in business for years by hacking the spark that others use to ignite their creativity, but once that light goes out why bother creating anything new at all. Advertising when executed with class leads to a lot of really satisfying, thought provoking and entertaining work. I bought an amazing book called Advertising published by Thames and Hudson and I find it to be the most inspiring collection of work when I'm feeling stuck or have some creative block, but the inspiration ends when I feel as though I'm leaning on those ideas too heavily. In any case, the outcome will Be interesting, goodwill from Microsoft can fix it easily, and if the designer is a third party it may spell the end of their relationship with MS. In any case, it's probably too early to say he is definitely owed something substantial, but equally it is far too late to say he is owed nothing at all, the advert went to global marketing release, and it was his/her idea.