Speaking of I Don't Believe It

[herron]

I don't believe it!

Just discovered that Mamiya USA is using one of MY images on their web site! It's my Mamiya ZM photo (of the camera in my collection) on my Mamiya Z-Series page, right down to the shadows!

I've sent them an email about it. Would appreciate it if any of you would also contact them at [e-mail], asking if that's the image from Ron Herron's Collecting Mamiya 35mm Cameras site!

Part of me is flattered they thought it professional enough to use...but another part of me would like an acknowledgement that it's mine...and they should have asked to use it...it is copyright protected, after all. Monetary consideration would be appropriate, too, and certainly not out of the question, I think!

...and why don't they list my web page for manual reprints?!

[herron]

anyone remember me talking about fire from the eyeballs, and foam flecking my lips? This Mamiya USA thing has brought me almost to the brink! I'm waiting to hear their response to my email.....and biting my tongue until the fire and foam passes...

[mickeyobe]

Ron,

Your wish is my command.

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mamiya ZM Quartz
Date: 12, October 2007, 3:35:45 PM EDT
To: [e-mail]

Dear Mamiya folks,

I have just finished reading through your excellent "Mamiya 35 mm Cameras" web site. I thank you for the effort that must have gone into compiling it.

I noticed that the picture of the Mamiya ZM Quartz camera is one that was taken by Ron Herron and that appears in his superb book
"Collecting Mamiya 35 mm Cameras".
Yet you give him no credit for the photo nor do you even mention his book which would most certainly be of great interest to users and collectors of your wonderful cameras.

Sincerly,

Mickey Oberman

Mickey

[paulatukcamera]

Ron,

I asked Randy if he would take steps to recover it for you.




Perhaps not exactly what you wanted


Paul

[Randy]

Snicker!

[herron]

Paul, Paul, Paul.

A big company like Mamiya (one whose cameras I have been devoted to for nearly 40 years) commits a flagrant act of plagarism, and all you can do is mention Randy's red lizard leather recovers?


Not my cup of tea, but it really doesn't look all that bad, does it?


Now, if you would just write to Mamiya USA and ask them why there's no credit on my photo, since you recognize it from my web site..........

[herron]

admin said:

Snicker!

I'm afraid I'm not laughing much at the moment. I've had lots of eBay violators of copyright, and a few outright frauds, where they were passing off one of my images as their sale item...but to have Mamiya plagarize my site, and commit such a flagrant copyright violation....after all I've done to promote their blasted camera line.........


I really would appreciate a flood of inquiries, asking them about the photo of my Mamiya ZM being on their web site, and why there is no credit, since everyone knows I would ask for one.......

[herron]

mickeyobe said:

Ron,

Your wish is my command.

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mamiya ZM Quartz
Date: 12, October 2007, 3:35:45 PM EDT
To: [e-mail]

Dear Mamiya folks,

I have just finished reading through your excellent "Mamiya 35 mm Cameras" web site. I thank you for the effort that must have gone into compiling it.

I noticed that the picture of the Mamiya ZM Quartz camera is one that was taken by Ron Herron and that appears in his superb book
"Collecting Mamiya 35 mm Cameras".
Yet you give him no credit for the photo nor do you even mention his book which would most certainly be of great interest to users and collectors of your wonderful cameras.

Sincerly,

Mickey Oberman

Mickey

Mickey, Mickey, Mickey....

Bless you, bless you, bless you!

But now I have to write a book! The picture was one Mamiya took from my web site!

[paulatukcamera]

Apologies Ron, it was meant to lighten your mood, not upset you.

There is really no point in writing any sort of mass letters/emails of the type you suggest, they will simply be ignored.

If I steal one of your pictures, I know I have stolen it, so expect some sort of protest - if discovered.

I have a method that is really effective, but please don't "embellish" it - just follow the instructions as given - everything has a reason! It will take you three months, but I am reasonably certain you will have some money in your pocket at the end of it.

The guy who did this is an employee. Don't get over involved or upset. This is a business decision by them. Now they have to pay.

Send an invoice (recorded mail is best):
Two distinct sections so even an idiot understands what he is being billed for!
a) $200 (or whatever you think is reasonable) for the reproduction and use of one of your photographs to 1st October 2007

B) Further $200 (or whatever) for use to 1st October 2008.

Grant permission for web use only. Printed use extra.

Make it a very formal type of invoice. Business heading at top. I wouldn't bother with an accompanying letter - this is a standard business deal after all! In fact it is probably better not too - let it slip through the system unnoticed - the recipient will merely pass it onto accounts or the web master.

Look up the Chief Executive's name and his company's head office address. Do NOT copy to webmaster, who is at the root of this! Let the CEO deal with it, or much more likely, not deal with it.

A two section invoice is necessary - if they do take immediate action and take the picture down after the CEO blasts his wayward employee, they still owe you money - if they keep it up they owe you more! Principle 1 Money if you win, Principle 2 More money if they delay payment!

So they:
1. Ignore you. Send repeat invoice after 30 days recorded delivery. (important, no letter still)
2. Still ignored further 30 days? Send legal notice of intended recovery of debt

3. Further 30 days - now send a nice letter to CEO explaining why you are taking him personally to court as he has ignored your invoices and say you are doing this with great reluctance
and now have to add a further $xxx for legal expenses

If they take it down, follow steps 1, 2 & 3 above for use of your photograph to October 1st.

Set the sums involved at a level that when you get the money you feel it was worth the bother, but not too high that it looks like a joke.

Now on the "back end" your web site put a little notice saying that - "Photos are available for reproduction at (e.g) $50pa with permission BUT $100 without" (for even a short length of time). Say they will be invoiced and that you always take legal action as a matter of principle. Date it about 2003.

I hope this is effective advice. Business is a matter of bluff! Woolworth's were late with a bill. So I invoiced the CEO personally. After 3 months got original money plus interest plus legal expenses so I know the process works.

For Copyright infringement, I always use Copyscape to check.

Paul

[Randy]

My post was about what Paul said Ron. Mamiya won't do anything until they recieve a letter from your lawyer.

[herron]

Paul & Randy:
I'm not upset with you guys...thanks for trying to lighten the mood.
When I look at it this morning, that "doctored" ZM is funny. I'll certainly
consider what Paul has to say...but will wait until the foam disappears
from around my lips, so I don't say anything else I will regret.

[PeterW]

Ron,

I was going to write something very similar to what Paul suggests, but he beat me to it.

I agree with Paul absolutely. I think $200 a year, or part year, fee for a single non-exclusive licence to publish - in this case publishing on the internet - plus an acknowledgement such as 'picture by Ron Herron' - for a single picture is very fair and resonable. Remember that this a licence for world-wide publication, NOT just inside the US, for one medium only, and does NOT include publication in any other medium, ie does not include pamphlet, magazine or book rights.

Remember also that this fee is for PUBLICATION WITH PRIOR AGREEMENT. The fee for unuthorised publication, in other words flagrant infringement of copyright, is usually DOUBLE the normal fee.

So I would make the invoice three-part.

1. Unauthorised use up to September 30 2007, $400.
2. Authorised use from October 1 2007 to September 30 2008, $200 payable in advance.
3. Authorised use thereafter, $200 per year or part year payable in advance.

Add a note at the bottom: Payment to be received on or before 30 days from date of invoice.

I would send this to the head of accounts department.

If you do not hear from them by 30 days from the date of your invoice you should then write to the CEO of the company, attaching a copy of the invoice, and ask for immediate settlement AND for the picture to be removed immediately from their website.

Add to this letter that you regard flagrant infringement of copyright very seriously, and unless you receive a favourable reply within seven days you will be forced, with reluctance, to take legal proceedings.

Keep everything very straightforward and businesslike and resist any inclinations to sound off at them.

I also agree with Paul that a flood of letters or emails from us would have no effect. Whoever first sees them will most likely drop them straight in the trash bin.

If the above does not produce results, approach one of the 'no win, no fee' law firms. If they know their business they will add all sorts of other charges plus an exhorbitant fee for their costs.

They will also draw the company's attention to the maximum penalties for copyright infringement in the US. I don't know what these are in the US, but in the UK the maximum penalty, on conviction can, as well as a sizeable fine, include seizure of all machinery used in producing and publishing the offending picture (their computers and all software) AND the servers and software of the host company that put the picture on the website, or the printing machinery of the company that printed it. I have never heard of this being done, but the provisions are there, and have been threatened in the case of pirated videos and music CDs.

GOOD LUCK.

PeterW

[herron]

this is the invoice posted to Mamiya USA (MAC Group) this afternoon:

MAC Group
8 Westchester Plaza
Elmsford, NY 10523
Attn: Accounts Payable

INVOICE

For the use of my image, found on this Mamiya USA web site:

www.mamiya.com/products/default.asp?ID=54

Fees are for a non-exclusive license to publish on the Internet for a single picture. This a license for worldwide publication, for one medium only, and does NOT include publication in any other medium (i.e.; does not include pamphlet, magazine or book rights).

Usage requires an acknowledgement of my picture, such as “Photo by Ronald Herron, from his collection”

1. The fee for unauthorized use up to September 30, 2007: $400.00
2. Fee for PUBLICATION WITH PRIOR AGREEMENT. Authorized use from
October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008, payable in advance: $200.00
3. Authorized use thereafter, $200.00 per year or part year, payable in advance.

Total due immediately: $600.00

Payment to be received within 30 days from date of invoice.

Payment should be made to the attention of:

Ronald L. Herron
{my address}
Owner of copyrighted web site “Collecting Mamiya 35mm Cameras”


I'll let you know, if and when I get a response.

[PeterW]

Well done, Ron.

We're all waiting to hear what result you get.

PeterW

[PeterW]

Ron, I've just done a spot of checking on penalties for willful copyright infringement.

Willful infirngement is criminal offence in UK, and in the last Copyright Act the penalties were ammended. Penalties imposed are now at the discretion of a court. Court costs are added to any penalties.

The court has to take into consideration:

Why the infingement occurred and , though ignorance of the law is not an excuse, whether or not the infringer knew, or as a company had a duty to know, that an offence was being committed.

Was the infringement made for gain, either directly or indirectly, ie, direct gain for selling copies, or indirect gain for advertising or publicity purposes.

How widely the infringing material was distributed or displayed, and

Whether or not the infringer has a record of previous copyright infringement.

At its discretion, the court can now impose an unlimited fine and/or up to ten years imprisonment for the infringer or, in the case of a company, the owner or principal officer of the company. This person does not even have to be aware that infringement took place. His staff are deemed to be acting on his behalf, and it is his duty to ensure that copyright infringement does not happen.

With regard to seizure of equipment: the police may, during the run-up to a trial, impound and remove for examination any computers, printing equipment, software and digital storage material likely to have been used in the infringement. Any digital storage material containing unauthorised copyright material may be destroyed, but the rest of the equipment and material must be returned to its owner ... eventually.

Independent printers or internet hosting companies are not now liable for criminal procedings unless they had or should have had reason to believe that the material was a copyright infringement.

The law in the US is very broadly similar but seems much more complicated, and I don't pretend to understand it. I gather the court has to decide, among other things, whether or not the infringement was a misdemeanour such as ignorance of copyright law by a private individual, or a felony - deliberate infringement by a person or company who should have known. I gather there are also different degrees of misdemeanour and felony, so the penalties can also vary. All this, I gather, can take a long time, so US court costs are usually quite a lot higher than those in the UK.

All this, in both the UK and the US, is separate from, and in addition to, any costs and damages awarded to the copyright holder.

There is no longer any need for a copyright to be registered in the US. Ever since the US signed the Berne Agreement some years ago, copyright exists the moment the work is created in tangible form. It is also no longer necessary, though it is desirable, to put a dated copyright notice on or near the work when it is published. For example: copyright © 2007 John Doe. An undated statement 'All Rights Reserved' used by itself means nothing anymore in law.

As in the UK and the EU, copyright in the US now lasts for the author's lifetime and belongs to his or her estate until the end of the seventieth year thereafter or, in the case of copyright owned by a company, until the end of the seventieth year following first publication. I don't know whether or not this is restrospective - it is in the UK and EU.

This retrospective bit led to some awkward situations. The period in the UK used to be fifty years, and in my reprints business, for example, I used some material in which the copyright had expired. When the law changed I had to get in touch with the publishers concerned and ask for permission to carry on using it. They were all very nice about it, agreed it was a silly situation, and gave me permission to carry on using it (with acknowledgement) without paying any fee, even though they could have asked for one.

Buying a legal copy of anything does not give the buyer the right to copy and distribute it - except to make a single copy for back-up purposes or for private use and study (such as photocopying a page from a repair manual for use on the workbench, or downloading a copy of a website for private study later.) There is a separate section of the Act covering copying by public or institution libraries.

Contrary to common belief, buying something on ebay or anywhere else does not give the buyer a right to copy the photograph used to sell the item and use this photograph anywhere else. You buy the item, not the copyright of its photograph (sorry, Randy!). Otherwise anyone could buy something which was advertised, or in a mail order catalogue, and then copy and sell the photograph. For example, if I want to use all or part of a printed advert in one of my compiled reprints I have to ask the copyright holder's permission first (as I did in the case of Kodak, and of Dixons who now own the copyright of all old Wallace Heaton catalogues and advertisements less than 70 years old, and the Singer Sewing Machine Company). Permission is rarely withheld. Most companies regard it as extra free advertising!

All the above is NOT a considered legal opinion (I'm not a lawyer). It is a precis of what I found in various Copyright Acts.

PeterW