[c-meier]

Via Photographer Threatened With Legal Action After Asserting His Copyright - Slashdot

Photographer Jay Lee got more than he bargained for after sending some DMCA takedown notifications out to hosts of sites using one of his pictures. One Candice Shwagger accused him of everything from conspiracy over local sheriff elections to child abuse. Since Candice is now threatening legal action, Jay has said he'll take down the post, so here's a snap shot. After reading the story, I checked for use of my own pictures and found one of them being used on a review site without even a credit.

Not an issue in my case (only wish somebody would use one of my pictures), but thought might be of interest to some of you, and wondering how common this sort of problem is.

[Lowell Goudge]

Via Photographer Threatened With Legal Action After Asserting His Copyright - Slashdot

Not an issue in my case (only wish somebody would use one of my pictures), but thought might be of interest to some of you, and wondering how common this sort of problem is.

I took the time to read the entire thing, and I suspect that there is something happening here that really don't get enough mention.

I was going to do a rant about lawyers being bullies but I changed my mind.

the real issue here is that the hosting site should be receiving the complaints, not the person who issued the DMCA.

It is every photographers right to protect his work. The DMCA is the means to do so. The website host complied with the requirement. Somewhere, I am sure, the the T&C of the host website must have the implications clearly spelled out with respect to the impact of complaints and violation of copyright. If they don't, then they are at fault, if they do, then the person who uses an image improperly has no complaint what so ever, but regardless, any one who has their site shut down because of a DMCA should not attack the person who Initiates a DMCA, they should correct the infringement.

[magkelly]

I don't really understand what's going on here. The woman comes off like a foaming at the mouth raving lunatic and honestly I can't understand how much of what she says or what it has to do with stealing this guy's photo or why he's afraid of her throwing a lawsuit at him. Can you clarify the jist of all this? Thanks!

[Lowell Goudge]

I don't really understand what's going on here. The woman comes off like a foaming at the mouth raving lunatic and honestly I can't understand how much of what she says or what it has to do with stealing this guy's photo or why he's afraid of her throwing a lawsuit at him. Can you clarify the jist of all this? Thanks!

If I have interpreted this correctly, I believe the issue is as follows

There was some private correspondence, as a result of the posting of the DCMA and the taking down of the websites as part of the corrective action, between the person who raised the DCMA and the person responsible for the sites using the photograph.

The correspondence which was made public, did not reflect kindly on the person who was responsible for the sites in question. And was likely made without permission.

That is the basis of the threatened suit,

It is just a really good reminder for both sides, that you should a) be very careful of what you "say" (generalization to cover print - email, post etc..) on one side, and b) consider asking permission to repeat what someone "says" on the other.

[DSims]

It's too bad Jay took the page down. His accuser clearly has no ground to stand on - her legal threats are incoherent and meaningless. But her venomous attacks would just continue, and he simply needs her to be quiet!

Still, her shame should remain posted for more people to see. She really injures her own causes - they obviously don't matter as much to her as her own warped self-image.