Tom Schwabel - copyright equivalent of Nigerian scam

[UnfairlyTargeted]

The guy shut down my website.  Like hell I'm going to pay.  He owes me!

[DavidVGoliath]

Lets get some facts straight here.  The image is this one:
http://500px.com/photo/1707910/japanese-garden-by-tom-schwabel

... and the nearest two similar images on Peter Lik's site are still significantly different from Schwabel's frame

http://www.lik.com/thework/forests-trees/wg943.html

http://www.lik.com/thework/forests-trees/treeoflife.html

I'm not about to go into a pixel-peeping forensic analysis of the differences between Schwabel's and Lik's work, save for the obvious that Schwabel's frame has rust coloured leaves scattered all over the grass, and Lik's frames don't. I could talk about overall composition, framing, apparent focal length and a myriad of other subjective criteria that, in aggregate, make up the significant differences between the two photographer's works.

But I wont. Let's just leave it at this: Schwabel has not appropriated Lik's work. The only thing they have in common is that they are both shots of a photogenic (does that word apply?) Japanese Maple in a well-known garden in Portland, OR.

And I think you will find he's stolen it from Lik and seeded it all over the net.  It's on BoredPanda and like 1000 other sites.

So your justification for image theft is that others might also have stolen it? We all know how successful that line of defence is 

I know I'm right.  That dickhead photographer is the one who is morally bankrupt here.

Oh, please, spare me the histrionics. You stole, you got caught, and now you're just pissed about the latter.

The guy shut down my website.  Like hell I'm going to pay.  He owes me!

Nope, he didn't. Your actions got your site shut down (if that's true) because you probably violated the terms of your hosting provider. All that Schwabel would have done is let your web host know that you were using their service to infringe on his works. If they shut you down, that's on you.

[DavidVGoliath]

@ DvG, sometimes it's impossible for some to see the forest, through the trees..

A stylish, apt pun. Touché, sir

BTW, Dvg don't you ever consider taken a picture of a sunset, I've already done that!

... whoops! I'll get my check-book :p

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

my final comment...an apt visual

http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li4cw2PmN91qap0t6o1_500.gif

[UnfairlyTargeted]

I'm surprised nobody here sees the hypocrisy of this guy.  Whatever.  I'll take my message elsewhere.  By the time I'm done with him, he'll have to pay people to use the crappy images he stole.  Holding websites ransom.  Maybe I should go into that business.  Sounds like everyone here would agree with me.

[DavidVGoliath]

I think you you'll find that a good many of the contributors on this site are creative professionals who are pro-copyright, because copyright law, at its core, helps to protect artists from the predations of those who would otherwise abuse them.

Sure, there are entities who abuse process and sail very close to the wind of what many here consider, in their opinion, to be extortion.

I guess what you didn't reckon on was that, from your own postings, you'd out yourself as someone who seeks to abuse artists of their right to be compensated when you make use of their work.

Remember, you made mention that Schwabel is either connected to or retains the services of a copyright attorney... yet your opening post stated quite clearly that he reached out to you directly in an attempt to seek restitution for your using his work. That's not extortion by any stretch of the imagination - that's someone taking a reasonable first step.

You're obviously dead-set in your opinion that you are right and Schwabel should never have had the temerity to contact you, let alone expect that he be compensated for your breach of his rights. I'm guessing that he moved to contact your web host when you point-blank refused to voluntarily remove his work from your website.

Again, note that he didn't lawyer up at that stage either. He took a proportionate step in response to your intransigence, and - assuming you're being truthful - your web host pulled the plug on your site as a result; as I said before, that's on you.

For what it's worth, I've never heard of a web hosting provider pulling anyone's site for a single breach of the DMCA; they usually have to have received multiple, repeated notifications that you were breaking the law and/or their terms of service... and they're duty-bound to report any claims to you.

If Schwabel now escalates the matter to a copyright attorney, that's also on you. If you decide to stick your head in the sand if or when that happens, that's on you too - and if this whole sorry mess winds up in court and the judge/jury rules against you... well, what can I say?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Most "reputable" web-hosts, will simply remove the offending image, s that is all they are required to do, Go-Daddy on the other hand has been known to simply pull the plug on entire domains, and I'm sure this is in their terms of service, buried in the fine print somewhere. The Op's original post as well as his following remarks, makes it very difficult to show any sympathy.. Chances are good if the image in question was removed in the first place, he may have never heard from the artist again, nor has his website pulled down..Just like DvG states, thats on him..

[UnfairlyTargeted]

Umm, accusing someone of stealing something when it isn't stolen and then telling them to pay or else is extortion.  Lawyer or no lawyer.  Especially if he seeds images onto the internet in a fishing expedition.  I bet he also hacks into websites to plant images too. That's something the FBI would be very interested in.

And since when is $200 fair for a stupid picture on the internet?  He should go learn how to take his own pretty pictures and stop trying to harass, defame, and extort honest folks trying to make an honest living in a tight economy.  He's messing with my business and my food on the table because he is too lazy to do something and make the world a better place.  There's wars going on and all kinds of other stuff that is much more important than this petty crap.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Umm, accusing someone of stealing something when it isn't stolen and then telling them to pay or else is extortion.  Lawyer or no lawyer.  Especially if he seeds images onto the internet in a fishing expedition.  I bet he also hacks into websites to plant images too. That's something the FBI would be very interested in.

And since when is $200 fair for a stupid picture on the internet?  He should go learn how to take his own pretty pictures and stop trying to harass, defame, and extort honest folks trying to make an honest living in a tight economy.  He's messing with my business and my food on the table because he is too lazy to do something and make the world a better place.  There's wars going on and all kinds of other stuff that is much more important than this petty crap.

did you license the image? I doubt it..

do you have PROOF he "seeded this image? I also doubt this has happened, or that you have proof.

are you aware by stating he hacks into websites, you could possibly be defaming the artist?
200.00 is the lowest amount a court would award for innocent infringement, which at this time based on your rantings would be a good deal, since it appears you did not bother to remove the image, which now makes this a "willful" infringement..and awards that could be much larger.

I do agree with your final statement, so maybe you should just pony up the money and we can all move on..

[UnfairlyTargeted]

Suit yourself.  I reported him to my state attorney general's office and the BBB.  Hopefully others will listen to my message and not fall prey to his sleazy tactics.  I'm certain I will prevail.

[Matthew Chan]

Let us assume that it was stolen from Lik. If you know it was stolen from someone why would you INTENTIONALLY copy it?  Is it your rationale that because someone claimed it from Lik, that you should do likewise?

The issue we have on ELI is largely the disproportionate amounts of money being asked and the way it is being extorted from smaller parties.  But we tell EVERYONE take down the damned image and don't use it.  It seems like you are FIGHTING TO USE it, justifying it because SOMEONE ELSE allegedly copied it.

You say the photo isn't worth much, then give it up. ELI gets enough of a bad rap that we condone copyright infringement. We don't.  We also have no love for Getty, Photo Attorney, and the other copyright thugs but you are being foolishly blatant and ignorant thinking we will support your rationale.

The photographer has a right to claim his work and insist others don't use it without his permission or compensation.  You were notified about the possible infringement but you are still going to use the image under the pretext that since someone else copied the image, you will too?

Yikes, is what I say.

Lets get some facts straight here.  The image is this one:
http://500px.com/photo/1707910/japanese-garden-by-tom-schwabel

And I think you will find he's stolen it from Lik and seeded it all over the net.  It's on BoredPanda and like 1000 other sites.

I know I'm right.  That dickhead photographer is the one who is morally bankrupt here.

[Matthew Chan]

Out of most of the copyright enforcers, I find Carolyn Wright to be among the most respectable.  I know that isn't saying much but I would give her more respect than most of the other losers in the business because she is actually passionate about her photography.  She lives and breathes it artistically and professionally. 

I absolutely disagree with the crazy amounts she puts into her extortion letters. That is my beef with her.  Her letters are misleading and heavy-handed but she does not strike me as being as stupid and sloppy as Getty. She is much smarter than the Getty idiots and she handpicks her clients. As far as I am concerned, she is just in the wrong business. Under any other circumstances (and I cannot believe I am saying this publicly), I almost find her likeable. I actually like her photography and find value in them unlike some other crap I see.

You can be suspect of whether her numbers and whether she will sue.  But I would NOT be suspect that the person she represents is the actual copyright holder of the image being claimed.

You seriously need to develop the ability to understand the finer distinctions of what we are explaining to you.

Oh, and I see he knows Carolyn Wright aka Photoattorney.  He was mentioned in her blog.  So clearly there is something underhanded at work here.

[Matthew Chan]

The guy made a copyright claim to the web host. You were given the opportunity to take the image down.  That is what we tell EVERYONE to do...  Take the image down, it isn't worth it. You may say the image isn't that valuable but you appeared to have kept the image up forcing the escalation.

The guy shut down my website.  Like hell I'm going to pay.  He owes me!

[Matthew Chan]

The central issue is that you clearly admit you don't own the image but you are fighting to use it without permission or compensation. That is what we are trying to tell you.

Also, we tell people the legal system can be tough for the extortionists, likewise, it will be tough for you. Few lawyers will be sympathetic to you but don't take our word for it.

I'm surprised nobody here sees the hypocrisy of this guy.  Whatever.  I'll take my message elsewhere.  By the time I'm done with him, he'll have to pay people to use the crappy images he stole.  Holding websites ransom.  Maybe I should go into that business.  Sounds like everyone here would agree with me.

[Matthew Chan]

You are making reckless accusations. We rarely accuse anyone of intentionally seeding images with the exception of one person. But even then, there is heavy evidence that corroborates that theory.  If you feel the FBI would do something, I beg you to call them and let us know how it turns out.

And regarding taking down your website to make a living, I think the photographer would argue the same thing. I don't agree with them but I also don't agree with you.

And if you don't starting absorbing what we are telling you, someone somewhere you will get slapped hard and no one from ELI will help you. Your opinions and thought process are so out there, you force us to side with the people we mostly despise.

I never thought I would ever see the day I would be arguing with any reader on behalf of the other side!

This has to be an ELI First!

Umm, accusing someone of stealing something when it isn't stolen and then telling them to pay or else is extortion.  Lawyer or no lawyer.  Especially if he seeds images onto the internet in a fishing expedition.  I bet he also hacks into websites to plant images too. That's something the FBI would be very interested in.

And since when is $200 fair for a stupid picture on the internet?  He should go learn how to take his own pretty pictures and stop trying to harass, defame, and extort honest folks trying to make an honest living in a tight economy.  He's messing with my business and my food on the table because he is too lazy to do something and make the world a better place.  There's wars going on and all kinds of other stuff that is much more important than this petty crap.