|
 racbb1 rated 12 months ago- I don't think all you people understand. This company violated intellectual property laws by nabbing a photograph off this man's website without asking for permission or compensating him for allowing them to use it for a for-profit purpose. How would you like some big corporation saving ...
|
|
17 Reviews
-
-
 Faz465 rated 5 months ago- "That's why this story is important." it's not important, stop being so smug
- BruceCage rated 12 months ago
- What the fuck is up with all the people thumbing this post down, the store grabbed a photograph of this guy's kid from the Internet not only without his permission but then went on and used it for-profit purposes (selling electronics) and you guys start sympathising with these thieves because of what?
- FlameWarrior rated 12 months ago
- Cry more. I'm so sick of people over-reacting to stuff like this. Intellectual property my ass.
- racbb1 rated 12 months ago
- I don't think all you people understand. This company violated intellectual property laws by nabbing a photograph off this man's website without asking for permission or compensating him for allowing them to use it for a for-profit purpose. How would you like some big corporation saving a picture you created off of the Internet and making money off of it? Not only is that an advertising no-no, but it's also illegal. Plus, Vinderen Elektriske has now just pissed off a consumer for no good reason. This blog entry may not have much effect on their business as a whole, but there's a chance Vinderen Elektriske will lose customers because of this (and I hope they do). The least they could have done was give the guy a couple of games. If they had sincerely apologized for the incident, Eirik might have walked away with positive feelings about the company. Too bad for them, I guess.
- TinaUK rated 12 months ago
- Totally agree it's not just a copyright issue, but a public relations issue. A commercial firm cannot just help themselves to someone's work and pass it off as their own. But mistakes do happen. Most people would have responded positively to a prompt apology, and an offer of recompense. But this supposedly reputable firm chose to insist they had done nothing wrong, showing wilful disregard of the law. Incidentally, in the U.K. the subject of a photograph usually has NO rights over it, and doesn't need to be asked permission, but the photographer or "owner" does.
- mrector rated 12 months ago
- 'I was obviously talking to a professional designer with absolutely no knowledge of intellectual property laws.'
Weird, doesn't the author mean material property rights?
- duconihilum rated 12 months ago
- You got your compensation, I don't understand what else you need.... a golden ring?
- nicklinn rated 12 months ago
- So some dumbass designer steals your work instead of dropping the $200 or so on properly released stock photography suddenly the guy getting robbed is some sort of freeloader. Apparently people here think one can walk up to a judge and collect money. In the real world lawyers get a third of judgments or settlements and expenses, not to mention if it goes to court you need to pay a stenographer, the jury, etc, etc, etc. Also in the real world it takes hours to gather evidence, write affidavit, register copyrights (need it for a lawsuit), and deal will the bullshit from these losers.
- KnThrak rated 12 months ago
- This guy stinks.
- pflammertsma rated 12 months ago
- "Material compensation"? The author of this article wants to benefit as much as possible from the theft of the image! Yes, using the image without permission was unfair, but getting $4000 is more than you deserved with an attitude like that. I find it somewhat a pity that it didn't actually go to court so he could get his $8000 -- and loose $6000 on legal fees. I just hope his arrogant, egoistic and aggressive behavior doesn't rub off on his son.
|
