| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
It certainly would be an unremovable burr under one's saddle to have it blatantly happen. But I would never enter into any potentially volatile exchanges unless I had a good attorney checking every exchange. As JK professed to his limited knowledge of U.S. law, I too follow suit with my ignorance of U.K. law, but here, placing inflammatory advertisements in public media can lead to a slander suit being filed. If someone makes their living by photography or an associated trade, then copyright piracy has more adverse tones than someone who is a so-called, 'semi-pro,' or 'advanced amateur,' (and I must place myself in the latter category) having their work pirated. It may rankle, but it isn't taking any bread off the table. An attorney would be more likely to accept a case from a professional photographer than from a non-pro, unless, of course, the non-pro caught the 'shot-of-a-lifetime,' like Steven Hawking shaking hands with the first documented alien landing here to grab a bite of pizza. - EdM.
That's why I said appropriately worded. The truth isn't slander.
And frankly it doesnt matter if you are a professional or an amateur...your possessions are your possessions. It's the principle more than the value.
One of my associates created a website for a company who repeatedly avoided paying him. After 6months he modified the homepage with a simple message to the effect that the website was currently 'running under restrictions due to non payment of debts'. Surprising how quickly they paid to remove that stigma. No legal involvement necessary.
But sorry ...I wouldn't standby and see my work stolen and used to the advantage of another without my consent, or even tacit agreement.
I would find 'some way' to gain redress.
But Andy has been quiet after his original posting???
Last edited on Sat Jul 7th, 2012 17:37 by Eric
____________________
Eric