Anyone Heard of World of Signs?

[US71]

World of Signs sells "real" road signs on clothes and other items through Cafe Press.

Imaging my surprise when I see this page:
http://worldofsigns.com/products.php?id=2154

It's based on one of my photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_71/2283115760/

Anyone who has visted my Flickr page knows all my photos are labeled as Creative Commons: All Rights Reserved.

I filed a complaint with Flickr only to be told "not our problem".

I have pending complaints with the site owner as well as Cafe Press.

Fortunately, he has not tried to duplicate anything from my Cafe Press shop  http://www.cafepress.com/US71  , though I really need to revise the selection & graphics one of these days.

[Alps]

Well the shirts themselves are just a representation of the sign.  The actual photo is just used on the page to show the origin.  While I agree that they shouldn't have stolen it, at the same time, you may have a tough time proving they're actually profiting from your photo - the most you may be able to claim is the amount that they saved by not sending someone else down there to take their own photo.

[Scott5114]

Depending on how much of a dick you want to be about it, you could file a DMCA takedown request. When most web hosts receive a DMCA request, they normally shut down the entire site as a protective measure, regardless of how much of it is actually germane to the request. As noted before though, this is sort of a dick move (RIAA uses it a lot, so that should tell you a lot) so I would only resort to that if they're uncooperative or unresponsive to your request.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

[Bickendan]

Off topic: I misread the topic (to my amusement) as 'Anyone Heard of Wormsign?'. Why, yes. Yes I have, Usul.

On topic: That is annoying they'd use one of your pics without permission, I think it is kinda flattering. Find a way to get them to get your permission, and revel that you've a chance to ascent to memetic mutation?

[US71]

Well, the photo has been removed & they are wanting permission to continue selling products with the design. I'll probably say OK, but I'll think on it a while

[Scott5114]

Because it's just text in a square, the "FLIPPIN BUSINESS" design isn't copyrightable. Even if it was, the contractor would have the copyright on it... Legally it doesn't matter if you say OK or not, they're just being nice

[deathtopumpkins]

But the issue here is that they used his photo, no? Then the copyright issue is on the use of his photo, not the content of the photo. It would be perfectly legal for them to simply go out and take their own photo, if I'm not mistaken.

[corco]

Yeah- if I take a picture of a Pepsi can I don't automatically own the rights to the Pepsi logo.

If my understanding of copyright law is correct, I'd own the rights to the exact picture of the Pepsi can, but only for non-commercial use, and not the can itself. If I marketed pictures of a photo of a Pepsi can, PepsiCo would have a legitimate claim there.

[US71]

I've been thinking about it and I'm leaning towards licensing it for 10 percent of his gross sales on that item... or he can forget using it.

Or maybe I'll post my own

[corco]

10%? I'd go 50! Whether they legally have to or not, you may as well make some money off of it!

[agentsteel53]

10%? I'd go 50! Whether they legally have to or not, you may as well make some money off of it!

at 50, they'd just shut down the line.  10 is squeezing their profits a bit, but likely not badly enough for them to just give up. 

[US71]

at 50, they'd just shut down the line.  10 is squeezing their profits a bit, but likely not badly enough for them to just give up.  

That would just break my heart...NOT. 

I have requested 15 percent of gross sales of the item in question. If he refuses to comply, then he must remove the products. 

BTW Jake: are shield generator images subject to copyright?   

[agentsteel53]

BTW Jake: are shield generator images subject to copyright?

no.  It would be the equivalent of Adobe copyrighting any image made in Photoshop or Illustrator.  

[corco]

at 50, they'd just shut down the line.  10 is squeezing their profits a bit, but likely not badly enough for them to just give up.

I don't know- I suspect they use a Cafepress style manufacturing facility, so their cost is likely only the cost of material, with no additional money invested in overhead just to make these shirts, so they'd still make money if they give 50% of their profit

Of course, I misread "gross sales" as "profit"

[US71]

I don't know- I suspect they use a Cafepress style manufacturing facility, so their cost is likely only the cost of material, with no additional money invested in overhead just to make these shirts, so they'd still make money if they give 50% of their profit

Yes, I followed a link on his site and it took me to Cafe Press, which I why I complained to them.

[Scott5114]

Legally, all they would have to do is remove your photo because that is all that you hold the copyright on. You can't demand that they stop selling the "Flippin Business" products, regardless of whether they got the idea from your photo or not. Because it's just a geometric shape and some text in FHWA Series font, it is public domain and nobody has any rights to it. If some other company were to release competing "Flippin Business" products, World of Signs couldn't object because they don't hold any rights to the design either–it is too simple for anyone to hold rights over! This is only superficially like the Pepsi can analogy*–the concept of copyright doesn't apply to the design because it is so simple and required no originality to put together.

TLDR version: David has rights to his photo and can demand the photo be removed, but has no rights to the "Flippin Business" design because nobody can have rights over something that simple.

*Yes, the analogy is correct, but it doesn't accurately describe what's actually going on here. In both scenarios, you're creating a derivative work based on something else. In the can analogy, you're taking a photo of something that someone else holds the copyright to. David, on the other hand, took a photo of something that is fundamentally non-copyrightable. The key difference here is that Pepsi would retain the rights to the can's design, and would certainly have some say on how an image containing that design were used, but in David's case, the sign's design belongs to no one, and thus nobody has any say on how that design is used. Were he taking a photo of a complex sign like, say, a intricately-designed state line sign, then the comparison would be valid.

[US71]

Legally, all they would have to do is remove your photo because that is all that you hold the copyright on. You can't demand that they stop selling the "Flippin Business" products, regardless of whether they got the idea from your photo or not.

Well, we'll see. I'm not holding my breath that he will pull his product or agree to pay me a percentage. Given he seems to live in Spain, he'll probably laugh. BUT, I made the attempt.

[Scott5114]

Well, I'm pretty sure you're allowed to exploit someone else's ignorance of U.S. copyright law to get the guy to give you money that he really doesn't have to pay you...