Now who is correct...............??

[signage]

Are you on new meds or what ??

This guy brought the artwork and the picture and said it was his when I point blank asked him. Now, at this point, I don't believe him, but that's an opinion and not a fact whatsoever. However, he says he bought it and you tell me I'm stealing ?? What for planet are you from ??

Do you ever re-read some of the stuff you send out ??

No I don't take any medication, unlike yourself!

As you have said in the past stealing is stealing! No you said you asked him were the photo came from and "he said the internet". Now you have the suspicsion he doesn't own it. Now you are in the business of printing and you asked the question you have now taken on the liability! Is it not your job to recreate what you now he doesn't own and sell him something that will not get you in possible trouble? I think you need to get off the soapbox you have been talking off of for the past couple of years!

 

[fmg]

Print, Peel and Stick.Next please!!!

 

[HulkSmash]

I don't see where it is part of your job to play copyright cop. The client has supplied you the art and there are no notices on it that you might normally be expected to pay heed to.

I agree Gino, not your job to worry about that.

 

[John Butto]

If you steal a piece of candy from your friend's house, and go to confession and tell, it is just one Haii Mary and two Our Fathers. But if you steal a Picasso painting it is five to ten. And if you steal a girl's virginity and she is over 18 there is no sentence, but if she gets pregnant, it is a life sentence. So there is a diference in "stealing is stealing".

 

[signage]

If you steal a piece of candy from your friend's house, and go to confession and tell, it is just one Haii Mary and two Our Fathers. But if you steal a Picasso painting it is five to ten. And if you steal a girl's virginity and she is over 18 there is no sentence, but if she gets pregnant, it is a life sentence. So there is a diference in "stealing is stealing".

I agree John but that is not what Gino has been preaching for years!

 

[Gino]

Gino
Do you post stuff just to be a lightning rod?

Nope, it actually played out exactly as I said. I post these things up to try to help myself and the others who might be having similar problems/situations.

If what you say is true, then help them out!

Search Istock or (insert preferred photo source) and locate a comparable image and recommend using it instead. It may require a fair amount of time to find a similar setting, but it will be worth it if they truly are a good and loyal customer.

Help them do the right thing. You will both benefit from the extra effort.

We are doing this very thing as we speak. Re-doing their artwork is gonna be a frickin' nightmare. :Big Laugh

No I don't take any medication, unlike yourself!

As you have said in the past stealing is stealing! No you said you asked him were the photo came from and "he said the internet". Now you have the suspicsion he doesn't own it. Now you are in the business of printing and you asked the question you have now taken on the liability! Is it not your job to recreate what you now he doesn't own and sell him something that will not get you in possible trouble? I think you need to get off the soapbox you have been talking off of for the past couple of years!

Brian, if you could write a passage without so many spelling errors, maybe I could follow your reasoning.

So, I repeat..... I had nothing to do with his getting the picture or whatever. He brought it in and said it was his. No matter what artwork one gets today, it comes from the internet. So why do you point a finger at me and say I'm stealing ?? The insinuation of being a printer and taking on liability makes no sense to me at all. I don't know if he owns it or not, but he says he does, so what law am I or he violating ?? How or why do you consider accepting a man and his word as stealing ??

As for the soapbox, I wouldn't worry about that. If I fall off, it's only about a 6" drop and that generally doesn't hurt anyone.

I will say you are correct on one of your statements. I have always said as long as I can remember, stealing is stealing. Yes....... stealing is stealing, but I don't see how accepting files and copy from my client as stealing. I have my doubts how he came about it, but I can't say he did or did not go to the trouble of securing this picture in some fashion.
​

What really is your beef Brian ??

 

[Shadowglen]

Source "Chilling Effects" "Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers) about Piracy or Copyright Infringement "

Question: I didn?t know that what I was doing could be illegal. Am I off the hook?

Answer: No. Copyright infringement actions do not require that you actually knew that the files were protected by copyright or that your use of the files violated federal law. Claims of ignorance cannot be used as a defense to direct copyright infringement, Lack of knowledge, is, however, a defense to contributory infringement. See What is contributory infringement?



Question: What is contributory infringement?

Answer: The other form of indirect infringement, contributory infringement, requires (1) knowledge of the infringing activity and (2) a material contribution -- actual assistance or inducement -- to the alleged piracy.



To succeed on a contributory infringement claim, the copyright owner must show that the webmaster or service provider actually knew or should have known of the infringing activity.


I think as always it holds true Ignorance to the law is no excuse!

 

[David Wright]

Like Fred said, you don't need to be the cop here. You went farther than most, that's all you can do.

 

[John Butto]

Looks like our distinguished colleague from North Dakota has made everything clear and Gino has his question answered.

 

[Marlene]

This guy brought the artwork and the picture and said it was his when I point blank asked him. Now, at this point, I don't believe him, but that's an opinion and not a fact whatsoever. However, he says he bought it and you tell me I'm stealing ?? What for planet are you from ??

if he says he paid for it and it is a high res photo, he might have bought it. just have him sign off on your quote/contract with the line item that customer supplied artwork and takes all responsbility for ownership issue now and in the future.

there is stuff that is clearly not theirs like a well known logo, the famous photo of human skulls stacked up and such but a high res photo seem like he may have bought it as photos posted on the web for sale or to look at usually aren't high enough res to produce at a large size.

 

[visual800]

If it is good clean art as no questions and do the damn job. You can waste time digging into anything and finding a reason NOT to go forward with it. You must have more time on your hands than I do cause I wouldnt waste any time UNLESS it was a fellow sign shop and the art was stolen.

I would make a notation on the invoice the customer supplied art and let it be at that

 

[Gino]

Okay, so the owner, Russ, left a little while ago. We went from wrapping it entirely to just die-cut lettering. He now thinks the background stuff would be too confusing for the trailer..... and I agreed with him.

As for the pictures, they did a rather large billboard crusades a few months back and that's who purchased all the photos for them. So, although I had my doubts, I knew they couldn't have gotten them themselves and the guy the other day, didn't know this.

So, no one stole a thing. We're lettering it next week in time for the car show the following week.

 

[skyhigh]

Are you on new meds or what ??

This guy brought the artwork and the picture and said it was his when I point blank asked him. Now, at this point, I don't believe him, but that's an opinion and not a fact whatsoever. However, he says he bought it and you tell me I'm stealing ?? What for planet are you from ??

Do you ever re-read some of the stuff you send out ??

Then whats the point of starting this thread
As techman said.....do you just post to be a lightning rod?

I don't believe him, but that's an opinion and not a fact whatsoever.

And Signage gave you HIS OPINION. He believes, if you use the image, you are a part to copyright infringment.


Why is it, that everyone who disagrees with you (or dosen't give the answer you're looking for) is on "Meds"? Thats getting old Gino.

Back to the our original programming.....
Without seeing the original picture, I'd be hard pressed to think you wouldn't be able to purchase something very similar on istock. I personally wouldn't argue with the customer, but I would spend a few minutes looking for something better, that would only cost me a few bucks.

You said the artwork is pretty good? Perhaps his art guy did purchase the file? How often can you pull a high resolution off of google? We're not the only ones who use istock.

 

[Gino]

Then whats the point of starting this thread
As techman said.....do you just post to be a lightning rod?

I forgot, some things just have to be explained over and over to some of you until something sinks in. The point of the thread is exactly as I first explained...... 'What do you think' ?? Not you as sky, signage or Tech, but you as in the membership as a whole. Is that so hard to follow ?? I brought it up as kinda an exercise as to where I think I know what I'm gonna do, but would like some other opinions, which for the most part disagrees with you and signage. Sorry, but read it and weep. The rest of it, for others who might be in the same predicament some day and not know to ask or have any idea of how they might or might not be hurting themselves. It never hurts to be on the safe side. With your thinking, there's no reason for anyone to ask questions cause you find them silly, so being the judge on all of this, I guess I could've saved valuable time and just come directly to you.


And Signage gave you HIS OPINION. He believes, if you use the image, you are a part to copyright infringment.

Sky, I can't even answer that again, you aren't tiring, you're just a ballbuster for no reason other than you're p!ssed about something and you need to bust my chops. Either put a sock in or like I told signage, level with me what's bugging you guys.


Why is it, that everyone who disagrees with you (or dosen't give the answer you're looking for) is on "Meds"? Thats getting old Gino.

This one I should probably apologize for, cause I forgot I was talking to signage...... and not you. Sorry signage, the meds thing was a mistake.

Back to the our original programming.....
Without seeing the original picture, I'd be hard pressed to think you wouldn't be able to purchase something very similar on istock. I personally wouldn't argue with the customer, but I would spend a few minutes looking for something better, that would only cost me a few bucks.

You said the artwork is pretty good? Perhaps his art guy did purchase the file? How often can you pull a high resolution off of google? We're not the only ones who use istock.

Okay, we'll do this again, since it appears you're now too lazy or tired to look back up one post and see how everything turned out.

The owner did indeed own all of the pictures all along. The guy he sent didn't know it...... or didn't act it. I know these guys for a long time and not one of them is at all computer savvy when it comes to downloading images at proper sizes and dpi. That was the first giveaway. The answers sounded kinda off the cuff. Nothing said they owned anything other the the words coming out of the guy's mouth setting this deal up. However, they did have complete ownership and authorization to use them. So, regardless if they had or not..... it's all over with as we are lettering with die-cut vinyl and no pictures.

Just for further clarification, had I used the pictures, an earlier post I mentioned would have in my quote and invoice that the pictures were the sole property of my client which they provided to us. No where was I doing anything wrong, such as signage's implication of stealing.

Stealing is stealing, unless you have no knowledge. Have you ever stole anything, has signage ?? Why are you two feeling like the sheriff suddenly ?? You two are starting to sound like those clowns with the foil hats on all the time. Where were you October 17th, 1997 ??

Does this help you understand any better or is there more ??
​

 

[skyhigh]

wow Gino.....
Sorry dude, it doesnt matter how you attempt to spin things around..... There isnt a soul reading your last post that doesnt think you're insane.

I think you have watched The Conspiricy Theory one too many times. I have no axe to grind with you.

Get a good nights sleep and read my post again when you are feeling better.

 

[Techman]

Its like a boat motor in a cesspool. The ultimate crap disturber.