Copyright Infringement Reports

[Aaron Kennedy]

Thread Rules

Stormtrack promotes the lawful use of photographs and videos by its members. If a user discoveres copyright infringement of any member's work, we ask that you please PM that user directly. If the pirated work encompasses multiple users, you may either PM every user seperately, or make a copyright infringement report within this thread. In the case that copyright infringement is suspected, but the work is unidentified, a post may also be made. We ask that discussion in this thread be limited to identifying the copyrighted work.

Reports of copyright infringement should be limited to this thread. These type of discussions should not appear on the rest of ST.

The Stormtrack Mods

[Doug_Kiesling]

I found this video out there that has a ton of my stuff and looks like other chasers and news clips.

http://www.lordchaz.com/katrina/katrinahires.htm

I'm posting this here since they claim that:

"All footage and still images were shot by Lord Chaz, Joshua, and their neighbor Glenn Theriot ( with a bit of help from Lord Chaz' diminutive "side-kick" Daemon ). "

Double check the footage to make sure they are not using your stuff and calling it their own if you have katrina storm or aftermath footage.

[Mike Hollingshead]

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Hellafireleli&page=1

Several chasers stuff posted by that user.

[Chris Sokol]

Checked over there tonight, and the video is gone. Did you happen to save a copy Doug?

[Doug_Kiesling]

Checked over there tonight, and the video is gone. Did you happen to save a copy Doug?

It is down now. I did save a copy on my hard drive and I think I put the fear of god into the dark lord theater guys for using my footage and saying they shot it.

[Doug_Kiesling]

What we need is another topic here about web design and code to protect images and video. A lot of people out there try to use are work to get web traffic for their sites to sell advertising. It is really no different then any other media now where its all about the advertising $$$.

There is a lot of different scripts out there that can be helpful without helping the competition out too much. Tim, can there be a photo video rights protected code only topic?

[David Drummond]

Created a thread for copyright protection discussion here:
http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10436

Let's leave this one here for reports of copyright abuse reporting only.

[Eric Whitehill]

Hey Mike:

Looks like someone else is trying to pass your photos off as their own.

http://www.stormvisionproductions.com/Friends_pics.html


-Eric

[David Drummond]

You guys might want to check through here and see if your stuff is there, or if you gave permission. I found several of mine I have had to contact YouTube to get removed. My copyrights were cut off the bottoms of my videos.

http://www.youtube.com/user/directorinthechair

I tried to contact the guy directly, but he has blocked anyone that is not on his friends list. I posted a comment about it on one of my videos he had requesting he remove it and he deleted the comment within 10 min but left the video up.

[Dan Robinson]

I tried to contact the guy directly, but he has blocked anyone that is not on his friends list. I posted a comment about it on one of my videos he had requesting he remove it and he deleted the comment within 10 min but left the video up.

Youtube is pretty good about removing stuff quickly, not that it makes it any less of a hassle. Several times users that I've reported for taking my stuff have even been banned.

Also, a quick FYI for anyone who has any trouble with footage/photos taken and posted online: get a lawyer. It's easier than you might think. Find one that doesn't charge fees to you and only takes commission when he gets a settlement or wins a court case. There are many out there. Most cases are slam dunks for the copyright holder, the infringer never has a valid defense.

I got tired of patrolling the net for my stuff getting ripped off for nothing. By the time I find it and demand removal, the site owner has already got his traffic and ad revenue for it. If money changes hands (IE, submission fees or ad revenue), then the DMCA protections are null and void. From now on I'm just handing the cases over to the attorney - the infringer will have to deal with him and work out a settlement. No more free rides for the infringer and no more hassles for me.

[George Flickinger]

http://www.stormvisionproductions.com/Friends_pics.html

Hollingshead will not appreciate the efforts of "Heidi C"

[David Drummond]

Indeed YouTube works fast. I reported that last night around the time I made the post and I was just informed it was taken down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1GR_ZfH9-o

[J West]

http://www.stormvisionproductions.com/Friends_pics.html

Hollingshead will not appreciate the efforts of "Heidi C"

Most of the pics make note of MH. I guess I'm confused?

[David Drummond]

Most of the pics make note of MH. I guess I'm confused?

Seems someone there is a reader of ST. When I looked at it when he posted the link, they definitely had Heidi C. as credited for them.

[APritchard]

Most of the pics make note of MH. I guess I'm confused?


I sent them a nice email informing them of the situation, and they replied saying they had resolved the issue. Mike is now credited with the photographs.

[Mike Hollingshead]

lol thanks. I wonder if they'll be on their latest video.

[APritchard]

I wondered maybe if they contacted you and asked if they could leave them up. I figued they'd take them down all together.

[Gene Moore]

Someone has video taped my chaseday site as a video, the stills are used, zoomed in on and put it to music. Actually it's a horrible job and most images are fuzzy at best. Still, I would like to get this removed from youtube. Unfortunately not all the images are copyrighted, but some are all the way back to the 70's.

David said here he reported an infringement and the next day his material was removed. Are you folks going through the written procedure youtube has listed, it seems there are quite a few rigorous requirements, pretty involved?

Here are the links: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ywXiDF8yzDc
http://youtube.com/user/xtornadodudex

Gene Moore

[David Drummond]

Gene, all your images are copyrighted from the minute you took them, whether or not you actually filed a formal copyright on them or not. What he has done is create a derivative work from your images, something that is also a copyright violation without your prior approval. I am betting that music was ripped too.

Yeah, when you go to flag it, there is an option there that will take you to that page about how to file a DMCA claim with them. Don't bother with the snail mail, just get the specifics, and a link to the video.

Since I have a formal company for handling my video stuff, I also signed up with them on a more permanent basis for taking care of copyright violations. It required printing and filling out a simple form and faxing it to them. The next day they emailed me the login details for a special account they created for me that has a tool in the search feature where you can tag and report any videos that are copyrighted by me and not have to go through the whole process each time.

Just to help, here is what I sent them via email to get the above mentioned video removed:

Hello persuant to your Copyright Infringemet Notification policy, I am providing you with the following information:

I would like to have the following video removed from this YouTube account as it is violating my copyright.

YouTube user directorinthechair has the following video posted here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1GR_ZfH9-o

I attempted to contact this user directly through email on their YouTube channel, but they have it set to friends only. I left a comment of the video, that it was under my copyright and they needed to remove it and the comment was removed.

I, David Drummond dba Dryline Media am the legal copyright owner, and videographer of all of the video in the contents of the video posted at the link above. The use registered on YouTube as directorinthechair has not been granted permission in any form to use or post this video.

This video was shot by me on June 03, 2003 near Lubbock, Texas and myself dba Dryline Media am the sole copyright owner of this video.

If you have further questions, feel free to contact me. I hereby electronically sign, under penalty of perjury, that the information presented in this email is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and I am authorized to act on my behalf dba Dryline Media.

Electronic Signature: David Drummond dba Dryline Media

Thank you for your assistance with this.

Just as a side note, most if not all of the tornado videos posted on this users channel are being used without permission. I know just about every videographer of the content on there personally. We storm chasers are a close knit community. Copyright violations of tornado video are taken very seriously within the storm chaser community.


David Drummond, Owner
Dryline Media http://drylinemedia.com (http://drylinemedia.com/)
(included all my contact info here)

Maybe that will help.

My personal opinion on the "borrowing" of stuff has evolved to where I am allowing it and ok with it as long as my burned in site urls or other such identification isn't tampered with and they haven't modified it in any way. When I find they have blurred out the URL or cut it off somehow, thats when I shut it down.

[David Drummond]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WUrjhCOPKNA

That same dude has a bunch in this video from Melanie and Peggy, Robert Prentice and some others. I couldn't catch the copyright burns from all of them because it's sped up so much, but there are some others in there.

[Bill Hamilton]

People like that think because they have stolen videos and show it to their friends that it makes them a chaser. Flag his videos and post comments.

From his website. http://youtube.com/user/xtornadodudex This just proves he has to be a professional stormchaser!
UPDATE: I have a very high quality 200 dollar camera now better videos coming soon.

[Danny Neal]

It is pretty funny how you can see some of the original copyright in his work. Like one of Bobby Prentices. It is probably some 15 yr old kid that doesn't know any better.....or someone that will try to push it off on his kids. We have given him heads up, I think 36 hours is sufficient time to get it off and if not, then infringe away.


People like that think because they have stolen videos and show it to their friends that it makes them a chaser. Flag his videos and post comments.

From his website. http://youtube.com/user/xtornadodudex This just proves he has to be a professional stormchaser!

[Tarmo Tanilsoo]

If I remember correctly, this thread is for reports only so I will refrain from further comments. However, that xtornadodudex's last description in is profile is rather interesting...

[T. Mosley]

Here's how frogsmoke.com handles this touchy issue:

All images on this site are used without prior permission, but with the hope that the copyright owner doesn't get angry.

[David Drummond]

Thread Rules
We ask that discussion in this thread be limited to identifying the copyrighted work.

Reports of copyright infringement should be limited to this thread. These type of discussions should not appear on the rest of ST.

The Stormtrack Mods

I believe some limited amounts of discussion would be ok in this thread, since when that was made, they clearly weren't intended to be discussed elsewhere. What was not intended was for it evolve into a huge bashing thread.

[Andrew Kajfasz]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WUrjhCOPKNA

That same dude has a bunch in this video from Melanie and Peggy, Robert Prentice and some others. I couldn't catch the copyright burns from all of them because it's sped up so much, but there are some others in there.

I can't quite make out the last name, but it looks to me like Chad Wixom as one of them.

[Gene Moore]

Thanks for the support on this David and others......

I hope he gets enough negative comments and "low stars" ratings that he will stop this. Problem is, he has enough of a youtube rating to get advertisement (new egg) on his main page, thus he may be making money off the videos he steals. I have written youtube, but no answer yet. Their copyright infringement procedure is pretty involved.

Web companies like Photobucket have been great about immediately removing my stills from their site. This is another image posting site where people can make money off others photography. In fact, when an image is posted on Photobucket there is a click option to automatically buy that image. I see many chaser images posted, but it takes hours to go through all the weather related shots. Seems a good copyright lawyer could have a field day with Photobucket because the act of posting the image includes the intent to sell.

Gene Moore

[Gene Moore]

One more comment on this piracy issue and that is the age of the person involved. Obviously I'm chasing a kid in this situation, maybe 17. Perhaps this should be an expanded thread elsewhere, but should teenagers get a free pass on this? I vote no, because once the video or image is taken others can rip off that work. I've already see a piece of what he did for his site elsewhere.

[Dan Robinson]

You would think that after the Napster/MP3 file sharing lawsuits that people would understand how serious and actionable copyright infringement is. The truth is that storm footage and photos have every bit of the same protections as popular music does. If teenagers who shared MP3s with no intended financial gain were successfully settled with/sued for thousands of dollars, an intentional theft of photos or video is just as actionable. Particularly for use on sites whos sole revenue is derived from advertising, which is a direct result of the quality of the content (photos and video).

We as chasers need to start realizing just how valuable our material is (that IS why people are always taking it!!!), and start taking advantage of the laws that protect our material to enforce its copyright. That is the only way things will stop getting stolen. As I said before, a copyright infringement case is a slam-dunk, open-and-shut deal for a good IP attorney. The infringer has absolutely no defense, you as the copyright owner hold ALL the cards. It is in your every advantage to legally pursue infringements.

If I knew years ago what I know now, I could have paid for several seasons of chasing if I had understood how valuable my material was and pursued all of the infringements I found. I'll cut somebody slack if it's a church secretary who unwittingly downloads a picture for the Sunday bulletin. But if it's being used to make money for someone, there's no reason to be a 'nice guy' about it and just let it go.

[Eric Flescher]

Re: Gene Moore's youtube video ripe off (see below)

Gene
Videotaping and posting them once was a , a more tedious a task and less and more complicated then it is now. One issue, a big one is copyright and posting anyone's video, when and how and what to do.
I have several questions about youtubing video posting as related to your videopost on Youtube and others posts that I see
(1) Did you insert the music or was that something that person put in?
(2) Was there a copyright on the videos ( or were they taken off)?
(3) You said you took these but I don't have any proof (like an opening screen or what).
(4) What is proper way to credit the your youtube video post?
(5) can't people link to your video(s) and if so what is the proper way to do this?

I am hoping to learn more about these incidents through these questions. You and others may comment as you choose.
Thanks for your time and consideraiton. Love your videos and accounts and videos Gene.

Dr. Eric Flescher (kcstormguy@aol.com), Olathe, KS: Lat 38.834, Lon -94.778: (H) 913-780-5902 : (M)913-486-1247: Storm Satori Blog <http://stormsatori-kcstormguy.blogspot.com/: E.O.A.S. (Earth, Oceans, Atmosphere and Space) Blog & Summer class Johnson County CC, OP, KS<http://eoas-dreric1kansas.blogspot.com/>: :Storm Satori website < http://members.aol.com/kcstormguy/stormsatori/stormsatori.htm

***
Hi,

Some guy ripped off my site and put it on youtube....If you have time could you give him a few choice comments about what he did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywXiDF8yzDc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywXiDF8yzDc)

Thanks,
Gene

[David Drummond]

One more comment on this piracy issue and that is the age of the person involved. Obviously I'm chasing a kid in this situation, maybe 17. Perhaps this should be an expanded thread elsewhere, but should teenagers get a free pass on this? I vote no, because once the video or image is taken others can rip off that work. I've already see a piece of what he did for his site elsewhere.

What's he going to learn from the experience by cutting him slack Gene? That he can get by with it next time. Legally it's no different than if he walked into a store and stuffed a DVD in his shirt and walked out. For some reason, the average person doesn't put the same value on something as intangible as intellectual property as they do physical property.

Looking at his recent comments, he is trying to act remorseful but hasn't made any effort to remove them either.

[Gene Moore]

It's not going to be easy to get this guy (kid) to stop with my material or all the other stuff he's pirated including the Simpson's.... since he lives in Canada. Youtube knows about this activity, there are very few sites that do not contain clips from movies, TV or private sources like our videos. Sony (pictures) was sueing them, but I have yet to hear the outcome.

One thing we have done successfully is lower his ratings. The flood of nasty comments and bad ratings has dropped him from five stars to two stars. That means he will come up low on the rankings.

In the future anyone that posts here that they have been ripped off we can (as a large group) make negative comments on their site and at least reduce their stars.http://stormtrack.org/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif

[David Drummond]

If you sent everything youtube needed Gene I am sure they will take it down. It's the weekend, so the people that look at that might not even be working.

Yeah, that guy certainly got a storm he wasn't expecting didn't he.

EDIT: looks like he's pulled down the other two and just Gene's is left up.

[Martin Kucera]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HPp3tQoftk&NR=1

[Mike Hollingshead]

LOL nothing says tornadoes like Tupac Changes. Whenever I'm chasing, I'm always lookin for a purse to snatch, and stayin in the dope game, cause hey...that's the way it is.

[Gene Moore]

http://www.bobstaake.com/copyno/examples.shtml

Unfortunately this solution may turn off viewers.http://stormtrack.org/forum/images/icons/icon11.gif

I'm seeing more of this on the web as people are getting frustrated.

[David Drummond]

That thing is useless Gene and a waste of a website owners time. I had the location of one of the images on his server in 3 seconds.

http://www.bobstaake.com/copyno/lichtenstein.gif

The people that grab your stuff and repost it know how to do just what I did to get that. (It's often kids too!)

I stand by my thought that the best way these days to handle it is to let them be your "agents" and work for you. Blast your URL on your images/video and everytime they post it some place, they just advertised your website for you and you didn't pay them a dime for it.

The fiasco with Mike Hollingshead's images is a great example. Could you imagine the kind of traffic he would have instantly had if he originaly would have had his URL on those images that got viral emailed around?

They you just have to worry about going after the jerks that either removed the copyright, altered the material, or are profiting off of it in some way.

Think of it in reverse. How much money would you have to pay out (not including your own time) to get your website URL on just a few hundred websites around the net? How much was that image worth?

[David Drummond]

Here's a good one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59dOxcDR8o#o8EjM63pXJk

I think it probably has video from every main storm chaser for the last decade or two.

I told him he was stealing and he says he's not, he got it from TV. Doesn't seem to think that is stealing. Seems like that video needs some comments and ratings, don't you guys think?

[Danny Neal]

Here's a good one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59dOxcDR8o#o8EjM63pXJk

I think it probably has video from every main storm chaser for the last decade or two.

I told him he was stealing and he says he's not, he got it from TV. Doesn't seem to think that is stealing. Seems like that video needs some comments and ratings, don't you guys think?

At least he removed it now. I will post a one that I just came upon....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8tGywiWfnE&watch_response another Hollingshead Special

[Mike Hollingshead]

That thing is useless Gene and a waste of a website owners time. I had the location of one of the images on his server in 3 seconds.

http://www.bobstaake.com/copyno/lichtenstein.gif

The people that grab your stuff and repost it know how to do just what I did to get that. (It's often kids too!)

I stand by my thought that the best way these days to handle it is to let them be your "agents" and work for you. Blast your URL on your images/video and everytime they post it some place, they just advertised your website for you and you didn't pay them a dime for it.

The fiasco with Mike Hollingshead's images is a great example. Could you imagine the kind of traffic he would have instantly had if he originaly would have had his URL on those images that got viral emailed around?

They you just have to worry about going after the jerks that either removed the copyright, altered the material, or are profiting off of it in some way.

Think of it in reverse. How much money would you have to pay out (not including your own time) to get your website URL on just a few hundred websites around the net? How much was that image worth?

I've seen some that hide them where you can't view the page info to get it. I forget how it was, but it popped up into a new window with thumbnails and there was no apparent way to view the page source/info. I think all the creative means won't be able to pass the trusty ol print screen thing.

I don't think it is worth bothering with and probably does more harm than good by turning people away. This reminds me, I still need to figure out how to remove it from my photography sales pages, as it was default with that program and changing the javascript where it says to wasn't doing the trick. But anyway, yeah, as long as something isn't larger than the screen size, good ol print screen will grab it no matter what.

[Shane Adams]

My solution to this problem is simple: I don't post video, ever.

[Danny Neal]

http://www.youtube.com/user/stormwatcher11

Only 16, but a lot of videos that do not belong to him albeit only under a minute long mostly.

[Eric Flescher]

(1) posting ratings and comments on the their videos is a great idea.
(2) How about all chasers have a little promo and copyright information in the beginning (I know some of you already do this but do those shysters take them off>) . That way your name etc is on display when they hawk your videos.



:::
Here's a good one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59dOxcDR8o#o8EjM63pXJk

I think it probably has video from every main storm chaser for the last decade or two.

I told him he was stealing and he says he's not, he got it from TV. Doesn't seem to think that is stealing. Seems like that video needs some comments and ratings, don't you guys think?

[Doug_Kiesling]

Well, I just busted another company ripping off my stuff and posting it as part of their production on YouTube.

Get this, they even had a press release and media coverage for their project in Los Angeles on their website.

When I busted them, here is what they said.

"We can use it under fair use because we pulled it off of The Weather Channels Web Site"

I told this idiot that I don't work for TWC and that as a stringer, the material is mine and I own the copyright, they only own a license just like CNN, National Geo, Fox and everyone else.

I guess they don't think people watch out for their videos. But since this was pirated and used by a production company, um yeah, their pretty much (SIC)fudged.

[Doug_Kiesling]

My solution to this problem is simple: I don't post video, ever.


Well, my solution, Register My Work With The Copyright Office!!!

I just settled with the company in California for what amounts to about $950.00 per second for unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a production, including distribution over the internet, television, DVD and in a theatrical performance in front of a live audence.

And I get film credit.

Post your work on line, just register it with the copyright office www.copyright.gov (http://www.copyright.gov)

[Darin Brunin]

I would like to ask this fellow 'chaser' to please remove one of my photos, that he claims as one of his own, off of his facebook account and wherever else it may be or any other chasers' photos that he has claimed.

I would appreciate your cooperation Mr. Patterson.

http://utulsa.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=12918&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=2260538542&aid=-1&id=226600662&oid=2260538542

Darin

[Dick McGowan]

http://utulsa.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=2260538542&view=all

One on the bottom right is a video capture of Scott Currens' 11/27/05 cold-core tornado! And to the left of that is Charles Allison's (Can't remember which day).

No big deal if it's on a facebook, but he obviously didn't take these. Maybe you could give proper credit, Matt?

[Mickey Ptak]

Yeah Matt, while you are taking everyone's images off your facebook site you can also take down my March 12 2006 image. Thanks!

Mick

[Justin Teague]

There are also images belonging to Dave Crowley and myself appearing on this site. You weren't even in SW Kansas on May 11th, 2005....you were in NW Kansas with everyone else. The video of the 4-15-06 Beatrice, NE tornado was shot by me and I would like my credit added to it, or for it to be removed. I would also like to have the tape back.

[John Olexa]

A while back was doing a google search on lightning images because someone told me a lot of mine were there. It was pretty cool seeing them until I saw this guys home page with one of my images on it. I contacted him and nicely told him to please remove it in the next 24 hours or pay me. he said he didn't steal it, it was on google. I emailed back did you see " Copyright 1999 John Olexa" ? I never heard back and the image was removed. Non photographer types think I was a butt head about it. But dang! I'm trying to make a few bucks and can't be letting everybody use them for free!

[Dave Crowley]

There are also images belonging to Dave Crowley and myself appearing on this site.

There are 9 of them that are mine and Justin's. This has been a recurring problem with this guy for over a year. His myspace page also uses my images as his own.

Hey Matt-
Get your own photos to post.

[Shane Adams]

I would like to ask this fellow 'chaser' to please remove one of my photos, that he claims as one of his own, off of his facebook account and wherever else it may be or any other chasers' photos that he has claimed.

I would appreciate your cooperation Mr. Patterson.

http://utulsa.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=12918&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=2260538542&aid=-1&id=226600662&oid=2260538542

Darin


Interesting to see that name....he also isn't real good about paying for video when money is owed. A chaser friend of mine dealt with him on some 5-2-06 footage and when the check didn't show when promised, he spent weeks trying to contact him by phone and email, even posting a public request for a response on his blog. Definitely a blacklist name in my book.

[David Drummond]

Looks like he took the pictures down from Facebook.

[Justin Teague]

Still images up on Myspace. Looks like the copyright tag was removed from Dave's Mulvane image. http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=58169356

[Shane Adams]

Wow. Wasn't he a part of the "Tulsa Brotherhood" in the past? That's quite the back stab.

[David Drummond]

He just cleared out the myspace ones too.

[matt patterson]

There seems to have been a HUGE misunderstanding and I would ask all of you who are questioning me to do so in a private message and I will answer any and all of your questions. I do apologize for any problems caused to anyone as it is not my intent to take any credit away from those who truely deserve it.

[Edward Ballou]

Saw an iReport on CNN with Mike H's mothership w/ lightning picture. I just shook my head.

[Susan Strom]

Just ran into this page, looks to be a collection somebody gathered and removed the ©'s. Warren, those are a couple of yours, yes?

this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/i-like-flickr/499678074/

brings you to:
http://mbbfunnypictures.blogspot.com/2007/05/lightnings-27-photos.html (http://mbbfunnypictures.blogspot.com/2007/05/lightnings-27-photos.html)

Real owners of the pictures see the inquiry from a possible buyer at the end there as well.

[Dick McGowan]

Sean Wilson, of Blown Away tours in Kansas City, is using one of my photos from 5/22/07 on his website. I didn't receive any credit for it, nor did he ever ask me to use it.

Link (http://www.blownawaytours.us/?m=200706) to his page with the photo.

Link (http://stackedplates.blogspot.com/2007/05/52207-nw-ks-chase.html) to my page with the photo.

[Dan Cook]

Pretty blatant theft there. What's the deal with all of these tour groups using other people's images?

[Maggie Kahman]

Just ran into this page, looks to be a collection somebody gathered and removed the ©'s. Warren, those are a couple of yours, yes?

Yep, Susan. That first link is definently 2 of Warrens' pictures (and one of among a few of my favorites!).

Warren is the reason I spent almost $500 on a new camera, so i could learn to take my own pictures like that.

Why on earth would you take the credit of a picture you didnt even take?? This makes no sense in my mind...

[Chad Cowan]

Sean Wilson, of Blown Away tours in Kansas City, is using one of my photos from 5/22/07 on his website. I didn't receive any credit for it, nor did he ever ask me to use it.

Wow... judging by the summaries on the website, this is probably one of the worst 'tour groups' out there. IF this guy was actually on the Hill City sup, why would he steal a photo of it? My guess after reading his 'chase summary', is that he wasn't there and needs some material to attract customers. It would seem that he read the ST reports page and wrote up his own little summary.

As we sat in a convenience store parking lot, we waited for the sky to start talking...they exploded into the atmosphere, so we got right on them.

LOL!

About us:
"Sean is a veteran Storm Chaser, who is VERY SAFE and WILL NOT take chances that will put YOU in harms way.” My goal is to SAFELY put you in a position, up close to the storm, to give you the experience of a lifetime.” Your safety is NUMBER ONE with us."

2007 Season Summary:
"Our next chase took us to Dumas Texas where we saw eight tornadoes in one day. It was like the sky was falling. Tornadoes were all around us. It was on this chase that we had our “Twister” movie experience. We were in a ravine, driving backwards trying to get out of the ditch with a tornado in hot pursuit of us. Happy ending. We got out of the ravine, the tornado went through the field next to us, and we got some great video."

[David Drummond]

Why on earth would you take the credit of a picture you didnt even take?? This makes no sense in my mind...

Me either. But, in the past we have had other actual STORM CHASERS swipe other people's pics, post them on their website as their own, and actually come back here and post a CHASE REPORT of them, of all things. To top that off, after the initial uproar over it dies down, they are welcomed back with open arms. Don't even try and ask me to understand that one.

[Mikey Gribble]

Unless it's an honest mistake, I don't know why you would welcome them back with open arms. Tim obviously makes the rules, but if I were running the show I would think it would be totally appropriate to ban people from stormtrack that are guilty of blatant copyright infringements.
Remember that one guy, Billy something that stole all those pictures and decided that the best way to handle it was to go down with the ship. It said they were all his until the bitter end. That kind of thing should not be tolerated. These people that are trying to con innocent people into paying for a chase tour are no better IMO and are probably worse. If you don't have enough pictures of tornadoes to fill up your own website, then you either haven't been chasing long enough or you aren't successful enough to be taking other people out chasing. You are forging a resume by posting pictures that aren't yours. That is all those people have to go off of. The tour groups that do that are con artists IMO. If you want to do chase tours, that's great. I'm fine with that even if you suck at chasing. But shoot straigth with your customers. Be honest about your experience and success.

[Dick McGowan]

http://www.blownawaytours.us/?page_id=4

Found another page with my pic on it. Most of the others look like video captures, but they could be someone else's.

[Mikey Gribble]

After looking at his car I'm pretty sure I've seen him in the field before. That or there is an OU kid that drives a gold Trail Blazer too. I talked to some guys in a trail blazer one time, but I'm pretty sure they were from OU. Just a quick hello at the gas station when we were filling up next to each other, so I didn't get much information.
Supposedly he's been chasing for a while, but I didn't see any pictures or video on his website to indicate he did anything noteworthy before 2007. I didn't look very hard though. I would think you would put some pics or video up from more than 2007 if you were trying to establish yourself as a seasoned chaser capable of taking out tours. Something doesn't seem right about that.

[Dan Cook]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jsjjx2HhIxU&feature=related

Anyone know who shot that Hallam video? It looks very familiar.

[Mike Hollingshead]

Stormgasm/Jim Bishop/Simon Brewer

[Bill Doms]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ2QIO57_xk

This one has stuff from Drummond, Lisius, and I am pretty sure Peggy Willenberg/Melanie Metz (someone near Emmetsburg IA on 6 11 04 anyhow).

[David Drummond]

Well I flagged that with my copyright buster account they gave me. It should be gone soon.

That one contained several I KNOW were filed at the copyright office, including mine.

[David Drummond]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ2QIO57_xk

This one has stuff from Drummond, Lisius, and I am pretty sure Peggy Willenberg/Melanie Metz (someone near Emmetsburg IA on 6 11 04 anyhow).

Well that didn't take long, less than 4 hours! Another one bites the dust! They can't defend that one, had a DRYLINE MEDIA logo right on parts of it. LOL

[David Schuttler]

Me either. But, in the past we have had other actual STORM CHASERS swipe other people's pics, post them on their website as their own, and actually come back here and post a CHASE REPORT of them, of all things. To top that off, after the initial uproar over it dies down, they are welcomed back with open arms. Don't even try and ask me to understand that one.

I wasn't on here for awhile and I was confused as to why I saw that name again on post. I figured I just missed something while I was gone or everyone forgot. That was sure a heated time then.... Oh well

[Dan Cook]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Nl0TYaWQQ&feature=related

Looks like that guy ripped a lot of pictures/videos to make that.

[Shane Adams]

I don't get these videos. It's six minutes of ripped off footage and 30 seconds' worth of actual, original content this person injected in to create some ridiculous storyline. How bored are these people???

Also, these people are shameless, because this guy had a lot of stuff copyrighted "Sonicbomb.com", which is another guy who ripped those clips off before. So now the theives are being stolen from as well.

[Laura Hedien]

Thanks for the Copyright link.
For those who may have used it- did you fill out the "Form VA" and "Form CON" for picture collections and then just send in a whole bunch? Is it just one fee then?
Thanks for looking out for one another.
Happy Holidays!
Laura

[Dan Robinson]

Not to be a downer, but does anyone else see a problem with the posting of copyrighted tornado documentaries and TV shows (Discovery, CourtTV, WE, etc) on YouTube - and the linking, condoning, encouragement and requesting of that here on ST? I know that a few ST members had their own footage used in the Discovery series and on the WE show, and technically have grounds to take action against footage from those episodes being placed on on Youtube. I haven't seen the CourtTV show posted yet, but I'm sure it eventually will be. Just a thought to bring up, since we normally are vigilant about protecting our own footage form the same type of thing.

[David Drummond]

Is someone here on the forum condoning doing that? Hopefully not. I don't think we as a community that is copyright conscience should be doing that.

That said, even I have pasted links to the documentaries and such that "someone" posted on youtube (not a member of this forum). Someone will eventually post them there, are we not going to watch them? Eventually Viacom or some other entity will come along and suspend their accounts for doing it anyway.

I know I would have never seen these specials if they aren't either posted on Youtube or offered on DVD someplace, as I don't watch TV, don't have cable or satellite subs any more, and that is the only way I will see them.

Then again, we have people in the chase community that will get really upset if someone steals their stuff, and at the same time they have no issues about using mainstream copyrighted music in their videos without permission. Some of the people doing are big name chasers too.

[Shane Adams]

I would never personally upload or download copyrighted footage onto/from youtube. But am I gonna watch it? You betcha.

The technology afforded the general public these days has far out-done an individual's ability to keep on top of (and take action against) copyright violation actions. The reason I don't post videos on my website or youtube is I don't have the time to chase down the 10,000 teenagers who would use my stuff illegally to make their stupid "hey look at me I can use software" compilation videos, which are nothing but ripped off clips bookended by needless text/transitions. And at the same time, I refuse to knowingly let them get away with it...so I just don't post.

But as long as people post stuff, I'm gonna watch it. The videos I wanna see but can't find, I figure those people have the same opinion as myself.

[Chris Vagasky]

http://asaq.org

Has removed any copyright marks on several photos (particularly from Hollingshead) and posted them on this page.

[Craig Maire II]

Definitely looks like I see a few of Mike H's pics on there.

[Craig Schultz]

Came across this site, http://fhrweather.tripod.com//id1.html, and I saw Eric Nguyen's pic on this page. I don't see his copyright in the bottom left corner like he has on his site, http://www.mesoscale.ws/pic2004/040612-13.jpg. There are a couple of others that look familiar.
Some have copyrights still on them, but I can't read them. It doesn't appear that there is credit given to anyone.
Just thought I'd pass it along for some of you to look over.
Craig

[BrandonWhittington]

While we are on the Subject, The new Storm Chasers series on the Discovery Channel shows a few of my videos from my May 4th chase. The videos are only a few seconds long, but the fact is, is that I did not give them permission to use my videos...The only place to get them from is off of You Tube...

What Would Yall do?

I have been trying to contact people at the Discovery Channel by phone and email, I have yet to get a response...... What should I do now???????

[fplowman]

Sue em for a bajillion dollars...

And we can all watch reruns and say hey thats the twister sisters.. i know them.. they done spent all that money....

But that Brandon hes a bajillionaire....

lol

[Mike Hollingshead]

Wasn't there something in youtube agreement one has to "sign" that said tv, etc could use that footage?

[cedwards]

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service.

To me, this does NOT mean that CNN can copy the video off of YouTube and air it, but Youtube can make a show promoting YouTube and air the video on that show.

[Dan Robinson]

This line is what keeps me away.

in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business

Technically CNN or Discovery could sign a partnership deal with YouTube to become an 'affiliate', getting access to all footage on the entire system. And not the low-quality video displayed on the YouTube website, but the original source files uploaded to the server.

The agreement says that video can be used for business including promotion of YouTube (as opposed to only YouTube business), which would indicate they are giving themselves the option to do whatever they wish with the footage (sell as stock footage, distribute to networks, etc.) Maybe they won't ever do that, but in court I think the language is vague enough that they could worm their way out of an infringement suit.

I think about it this way - TANSTAAFL (Google it). Youtube is giving away massive and unlimited amounts of bandwidth and storage for free - and not out of the goodness of their hearts I can tell you for sure. They expect something in return for that.

Until that agreement says that they can only use the video for promoting YouTube, I'm staying far, far away as far as putting chase video on there.

[cedwards]

The original file I upload to YouTube is no higher resolution than they display. I also put my website across the entire video. I have actually been contacted by several TC/Cable stations and licensed video based on what I have posted on there. So, for me, the benefits far outweigh the pitfalls.

[David Drummond]

I spotted this when this website was posted in the NOW thread. WHOOPS!

http://wx5tvs.com/ST/whoops.jpg

How ironic they would get caught on this on a day like today.

http://www.wreg.com

[Danny Neal]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=X-VdpOzmkVM some of Tony Laubach's video from 2/5/08. 17 years old

[Tony Laubach]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=X-VdpOzmkVM some of Tony Laubach's video from 2/5/08. 17 years old

Looks like he nabbed some of Scott C's stuff as well.

[Danny Neal]

He recently commented and said he didn't claim credit for the videos and to PM him if you want them removed.

"I'm not taking any credit for these clips...I was just trying to make an overall compilation of all the clips I saw on youtube of the severe weather outbreak...If your video is in here and you want recognition or want it removed than please feel free to send me a PM."

It is always the same story.....from practically the same age group.

[Shane Adams]

It's to the point now where any chaser who posts video on youtube is just asking for headaches. They're young, they're ignorant of copyright laws, and they just don't care, because for them it's a fleeting 5-minute interest and then it's forgotten. Unless you have a crack team of attorneys at your command 24-7, it's futile to worry about people ripping your stuff. If you haven't already, I'd suggest a random check of a typical 'comments' section on any of these youtube storm videos that were submitted by regular Joes. They read like a middle school bathroom wall, and it's frightening how many of these people there are in the world. Youtube has become the Darwin of the internet, and the same people who helped make it that way are the ones who rip others' videos, including chasers'....especially fresh video of a fresh, newsworthy event like Feb 5. I saw Scott's link the day he put it up and thought "I'll be seeing this clip under 3-4 other usernames within the week."

I keep hearing the argument that youtube is great for advertising/exposure, but I just don't see it. 99.9% of all people, even the ones who like storm/tornado video, are casual interests. If you give them a few minutes' worth for free, they're never going to pay for the full version (they don't care they only got to see 1 minute of a 7-minute tornado, they didn't have to pay for it so cool beans). It's slowly killing the stock video trade as well, because with today's extreme "reality" type producers, they want drama first....quality is down the list of priorities. The exact kind of material found on youtube in massive amounts. Every Joe in America has a video camera or cell phone now so nothing's missed.

The only medium of storm video that youtube doesn't hurt is stringing, because that's all about being first, and the pros will always have the best equipment for getting images and video online quickest.

[Jason Foster]

I wouldn't even email them. Just file papers with the appropriate jurisdiction, who then forces youtube to give the known information (like IP address) to track down the offender. Then you can just bill them at full legal rate.

With all the abuse of video stealing out there, one could make a lot of money this way.

[Tony Laubach]

He recently commented and said he didn't claim credit for the videos and to PM him if you want them removed.

"I'm not taking any credit for these clips...I was just trying to make an overall compilation of all the clips I saw on youtube of the severe weather outbreak...If your video is in here and you want recognition or want it removed than please feel free to send me a PM."

It is always the same story.....from practically the same age group.

It looks as if its already been taken down. And for what its worth, the video of mine was taken from AP as I have not personally posted the video on any YouTube or other such avenue.

Shane's right, and the reason you've seen little YouTube posts is because of the pirating. Anything I will post in the future will be covered like hell with graphics and other fun goodies. Easy to do in the rendering process, so it's little off my back. Then, they can take it and do whatever. I've actually been amazed with as much as I have on YouTube, that it doesn't turn up more often.

I guess my videos just suck! Probably not far from the truth, but hey, whatever works, right? :)

[scott r currens]

....especially fresh video of a fresh, newsworthy event like Feb 5. I saw Scott's link the day he put it up and thought "I'll be seeing this clip under 3-4 other usernames within the week."

I keep hearing the argument that youtube is great for advertising/exposure, but I just don't see it. 99.9% of all people, even the ones who like storm/tornado video, are casual interests.

I fully expect people to steal everything I put my website and YouTube. It sucks but that is just how things are these days. As long as they don't try to claim it as their own I'm no going to lose any sleep over it. I never display high-resolution images or video and I stick a big fat "www.violentplains.com" on it so they advertise my site if they do steal it. I sold more DVDs in the three days following Feb 5 than I had in the month prior so I think YouTube does help video sales.

[Jim Saueressig]

The one advantage of posting on Youtube is that it destroys the quality and renders whatever you post nearly unusable for anything else especially if they are using it on Youtube again and it again gets massively compressed. If nothing else be sure to put your website link across the middle in big letters and gain free advertising from the pirates.

[Brian Emfinger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPWTeUaX9rs

Mike H's "Hurricane Katrina" pictures just won't die.

[David Drummond]

. Now before some of you blow a gasket I have copied a couple of things from here and sent to a tv station Im trying to get in good with. I have also sent the owners of the videos an email telling them about it. One was the eclipse, since we could not see it in Oklahoma because of the cloud cover and another one was the black wall cloud seen earlier in this posting. All of the people who shot the photos or videos did in fact receive proper credit for the item. I do not and never will take credit for things that I do not do. Most members here are from other parts of this country and around the world and some items posted are quite interesting and may be of interest to the viewers in Oklahoma. With the tv station I have to have all my videos or still to them by 8PM so they can get it on the weather part of the news. If I see something that I believe may be of interest and use it you will be given credit and then I will send you an email or private message. As for me any videos or stills I post here, you all are welcome to. As soon as I get my youtube site up and running the way I want it, the same goes there you are welcome to it. All I request is that you be a member of stormtrack.org, that I receive the credit and when you get the chance you let me know by pm or email. Now I hope you all don't blow a gasket. If it is not my work I will never portray it as my work. The owner will receive full credit for it. I recently was on ExpressJet shot some video of some storms and gave the flight crew, including the flight att. and the airline credit for their assistance.

I sincerely hope you are getting this permission from the owners here BEFORE you are sending their work to any TV station or using it in any other fashion.

[scott r currens]

Now before some of you blow a gasket I have copied a couple of things from here and sent to a tv station Im trying to get in good with. I have also sent the owners of the videos an email telling them about it.

This is a really bad idea unless you have some prior arrangement with the people that shoot the photos. I don't give anything to for-profit organizations. If a TV station wants my stuff they have to pay for it. If I foundout that a TV station used my images without my permission I would send them a bill.

[Dick McGowan]

Now before some of you blow a gasket I have copied a couple of things from here and sent to a tv station Im trying to get in good with. I have also sent the owners of the videos an email telling them about it. One was the eclipse, since we could not see it in Oklahoma because of the cloud cover and another one was the black wall cloud seen earlier in this posting. All of the people who shot the photos or videos did in fact receive proper credit for the item. I do not and never will take credit for things that I do not do. Most members here are from other parts of this country and around the world and some items posted are quite interesting and may be of interest to the viewers in Oklahoma. With the tv station I have to have all my videos or still to them by 8PM so they can get it on the weather part of the news. If I see something that I believe may be of interest and use it you will be given credit and then I will send you an email or private message. As for me any videos or stills I post here, you all are welcome to. As soon as I get my youtube site up and running the way I want it, the same goes there you are welcome to it. All I request is that you be a member of stormtrack.org, that I receive the credit and when you get the chance you let me know by pm or email. Now I hope you all don't blow a gasket. If it is not my work I will never portray it as my work. The owner will receive full credit for it. I recently was on ExpressJet shot some video of some storms and gave the flight crew, including the flight att. and the airline credit for their assistance.

Last time I checked, "public credit" didn't pay for the thousands of dollars in gas nor the thousands of boring miles, sometimes for clear skies, I've wasted in the past few years. Nor does your "getting in good with the station," so I guess I'll just go blow another gasket while I'm awaiting my public credit!! P.S., tv stations aren't on welfare.

[Dennis Sherrod]

================================================== =====
Originally Posted by Wayne Hlinicky
Now before some of you blow a gasket I have copied a couple of things from here and sent to a tv station Im trying to get in good with. I have also sent the owners of the videos an email telling them about it. One was the eclipse, since we could not see it in Oklahoma because of the cloud cover and another one was the black wall cloud seen earlier in this posting. All of the people who shot the photos or videos did in fact receive proper credit for the item. I do not and never will take credit for things that I do not do. Most members here are from other parts of this country and around the world and some items posted are quite interesting and may be of interest to the viewers in Oklahoma. With the tv station I have to have all my videos or still to them by 8PM so they can get it on the weather part of the news. If I see something that I believe may be of interest and use it you will be given credit and then I will send you an email or private message. As for me any videos or stills I post here, you all are welcome to. As soon as I get my youtube site up and running the way I want it, the same goes there you are welcome to it. All I request is that you be a member of stormtrack.org, that I receive the credit and when you get the chance you let me know by pm or email. Now I hope you all don't blow a gasket. If it is not my work I will never portray it as my work. The owner will receive full credit for it. I recently was on ExpressJet shot some video of some storms and gave the flight crew, including the flight att. and the airline credit for their assistance.
================================================== ========

Wayne,
A piece of so-called friendly advice.
Before you go too much farther into your venture, I would highly suggest you seek legal counsel on your actions and unauthorized use of others' materials. I can easily see someone coming after you legally with Cease and Desist Actions and Compensation Claims. Plagiarism is viewed in some states as an act of theft and is not only a civil action, but also criminal.
Most all of us spend a lot of money to do what we do to have it sucked out from under us with someone wanting to get in good with someone else or make themselves look good.
There are specific laws regarding using others' works with out their prior authorization and depending upon the manner it is used and the state involved, a written contract may be necessary.
Take this advice in any manner you desire, but I can well see several people starting to make calls to any stations around your area giving them a heads up on your actions and possibly taking further actions after that.
"After the fact" credit does not meet the standards prescribed in law.
There have been others around that can very well comment on plagiarizing others materials and the consequences of their actions.

[Dustin Wilcox]

Couple F-Bombs, so not for virgin ears; really gets good from 2:00 on....
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mj5IV23g-fE&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mj5IV23g-fE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Chris Sokol]

Don't know if you have seen this...no name attached, so I wasn't sure if it was Mike's or somebody elses:

http://www.motivationalbuck.com/view.aspx?id=62662

http://www.motivationalbuck.com/pix/Low_d519475863654f6.jpg?current=4/3/2008 2:21:30 AM

[Ben Prusia]

Seen some familiar videos here in this person's "compliation" video:

http://www.vimeo.com/739834

[Dan Cook]

Isn't that first one Dave Drummond's?

[David Drummond]

No, but there is a little piece of one of mine in there.

[Dan Cook]

No, but there is a little piece of one of mine in there.

Ah. I thought that first picture on there looks a lot like the one from your "chase the caprock" avatar.

[Dennis Sherrod]

I am continuously amazed at how much theft is going on of people's photos and videos even among our own ranks. The blatant theft of property by cropping Copyrights off and just cropping the size of photographs to change the appearance somewhat is overwhelming. Obviously the same thing is also going on with videos. They blatantly and boldly post these photos and videos on their own websites and declare them as their own. You see this with any type photography, but the high interest items like Storms, Wildlife, and Picturesque Scenery seem to take preference.
Of course a thieve is like an addict. They will not stop until they either want to stop or the legal system intervenes and hinders their abilities. Even that does not work at times as they will return to their trade as they learn different techniques. Until the owners of property seek legal actions and force these thieves to stop by getting judgments to shut down and close websites, and prosecuting, and then placing liens against anything they own, the thievery will continue. Of course it will never be completely stopped as is evidenced by what is continuously seen and found.
Most of these thieves are too lazy and lack the proper social abilities to work to do something for themselves and make any meaningful contribution to society. They prefer to sponge upon others.
I have researched some and have found several cases and courts of late, both on State and Federal levels, who are not only prosecuting through both Civil and Criminal courts, but are allowing the common man to place the Judgment Liens against a person's property. This may not give the owner any monetary damages immediately if the thief has nothing, but the violator will never be able to obtain clear title to or legally sell the liened property until the judgments are satisfied. Most of the cases I have reviewed have been done on a contingency basis by an attorney, with the client only paying filing fees. Not a bad way to go after someone for only one hundred or two hundred dollars. Some cases are being filed and held in the the jurisdiction of the owner of the property and not the thief's state jurisdiction. This also makes it nice as this forces further financial and time related hardships upon the thief.
You can get websites shut down, thieves prosecuted, force them into selling some non essential property they have, and place judgment liens against anything else they may own, including automobiles now.
But I guess the thief will take advantage anyway he can. If he can not steal it from someone in person, they will slither around and try to do it by computer and then try to sell or show the stolen items via computer. The vicious cycle continues.

[Ryan McGinnis]

Unfortunately, copyright law is federal. Any claims you file must be through the federal court system, which is very, very expensive. Worthwhile if the infringer has deep pockets, but otherwise...

The only real exception to this in the states is if you enter into a contract with someone and you stipulate the option of using arbitration. That's not the case for most of the stuff we've seen.

I am, of course, not a lawyer and you should consult one for legal advice. :)

[Dennis Sherrod]

Unfortunately, copyright law is federal. Any claims you file must be through the federal court system, which is very, very expensive.

Not entirely true Ryan. "Copyright law" is both a Federal and a State violation dependent upon the crime alleged to be perpetrated and the circumstances behind it. Most states have state level statues pertaining to Copyright and do not have to be initiated or handled only through the Federal system.

[Ryan McGinnis]

Not entirely true Ryan. "Copyright law" is both a Federal and a State violation dependent upon the crime alleged to be perpetrated and the circumstances behind it. Most states have state level statues pertaining to Copyright and do not have to be initiated or handled only through the Federal system.

I'd be interested in seeing those state copyright laws; the federal copyright statute is very explicit (http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000301----000-.html) in declaring that it overrides all state laws, with only a few exceptions.

[Dennis Sherrod]

I'd be interested in seeing those state copyright laws; the federal copyright statute is very explicit (http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000301----000-.html) in declaring that it overrides all state laws, with only a few exceptions.



You are only partially correct as the Cornell site you referred to clearly states.
http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000301----000-.html
(link posted to meet copyright law)
Each state does have its own authority to deal with such matters as is stated in:


TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 3 > § 301Prev | Next § 301. Preemption with respect to other laws
(a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.
(b) Nothing in this title annuls or limits any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State with respect to—
(1) subject matter that does not come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, including works of authorship not fixed in any tangible medium of expression; or (etc. etc - ds addition)
================================================== ==

Sections 102 and 103 are relevant to what this conversation is about and the relevancy of Sections 102 and 103 of Federal Code Section 301 are modified and amended as stated below.
Additional relevant Sections are 106 and 107 through 122 of the aforementioned Federal Code.

Newer statute updates are available that may be and are relevant to this 1978 law with a 2006 addition, modification, and amendment of the prevalent Federal Statue. This statue that you linked is from a 2006 update but which in fact, does have newer modifications attached thereto. These can be found by additional searches through the Cornell site or each interested state AG's site that you may be inquiring about. Most can be accessed via the web.
Further clarification may be obtained by referring to the glossary section as to the meaning used pertaining to Authorship, and the fixed Tangible Medium of Expression.

[Dennis Sherrod]

Additional information relevant to the above post:



TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 3 > § 301Prev | Next § 301. Preemption with respect to other laws
(f)
(1) On or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the rights conferred by section 106A with respect to works of visual art to which the rights conferred by section 106A apply are governed exclusively by section 106A and section 113 (d) and the provisions of this title relating to such sections. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any work of visual art under the common law or statutes of any State.
(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) annuls or limits any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State with respect to— (A) any cause of action from undertakings commenced before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990;
(B) activities violating legal or equitable rights that are not equivalent to any of the rights conferred by section 106A with respect to works of visual art; or
(C) activities violating legal or equitable rights which extend beyond the life of the author.

[Ryan McGinnis]

Yes, but what you are highlighting in bold is basically saying "the state law only applies to things the federal law doesn't apply to". 102 and 103 list everything copyrightable.

102:

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.


(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

103 deals with derivative works. So basically, anything you can register at the U.S. copyright office falls under jurisdiction of only the federal law. That's how I read it, anyhow. I really am curious about state copyright laws, though -- if you can dig one up and link me to it, I'd appreciate it. Up until this point, I've only heard of the traditional federal remedies. Heck, this is the primary reason ASMP is currently lobbying to get a new, cheaper, easier copyright enforcement provision written into the latest incarnation of the orphan works bill -- right now you have to file in federal district court. If there's a cheaper state based small-courts or local courts alternative, there are a lot of photographers out there that would love to know about it.

[Dennis Sherrod]

Ryan,
Without dragging this out into more than what it already has, I would suggest one or both of the following two manners in which to pursue this.
1. Go back and do an in-depth study and analysis of Sections 102, 103, 106, and Sections 107 through 122 of this Code.
In addition, investigate Sections 610 and the referenced sub-sections of that, along with the aforementioned Glossary of terms.
Without an in-depth study and knowledge of the terminology used and a thorough legal understanding of how Federal Law pertains to Copyright, Infringement, Theft, and Computer Crime and its cross references and relevancy to appropriate State Statues, this thread could go on and on.
In addition, there have been numerous updates to the laws since the 2006 referenced version you initially brought up.
It is not sensible or prudent to point out only the base points and terminology of any given Section or Statue, whether State or Federal. Thus the above suggestion is a much more prudent approach.
The Orphan Works submission is partially relevant to this, as my limited understanding goes, but I can not speak intelligently about this as I have not studied it in depth.
As you can see, we are speaking on terms of a 30 year old law that has had many revisions, a 2006 quote, and another proposed bill 2 years later to further amend this on top of the computer / cyber crimes laws relevant to this issue that have since been enacted, passed, and put into law.
In addition, each state that may have laws pertaining to this type crime(s) has it own set of guidelines that are based primarily upon the Federal Statue, but not inclusively and wholly, as they are given certain leeway to enact and enforce such.
2. As the second suggestion, contact a current practicing attorney that has experience in the state of your interest along with the experience in Federal practice as well as State experience in this field. I would suggest an attorney referral organization or someone you can trust that will recommend someone thoroughly knowledgeable in this field of practice.

I am not trying to pass on this, but as I said, this could go on and on, as this is a specialized field of practice and takes substantial time and involvement researching each state involved and as it relates to the Federal level. You obviously have the basic knowledge of web searching to find the relevant laws, so you should be able to get more in-depth information should you so desire to research this yourself.
If you follow the above guidelines, this should help you find the basic information you are seeking and give you some of the understanding of the terminology used.
Be sure to research the time spans of the alleged offenses, the "copyrights" violations alleged, and the requirements mandated and necessary to meet the legal definition of each type of Copyright, Theft, Infringement, Computer Crime, Authorship, and Tangible Medium of Expression involved.
Also look at the aggressor's role as it pertains to Misunderstanding (usually never allowed), Time Spans, Misrepresentations, False Ownership Claims, Over Copyrighting, (placing their own copyright in place of the legitimate one), and the willful, malicious, and intentional acts of removing or cropping someone's copyright and / or watermarks from their images or protected property. These acts are the ones that are given great weight in the courts as to Criminal charges being filed and much higher Civil dollar amount judgments. (I think a minimum of $3000.00 per photo violation up to $300,000 per each and every photo violation. I may be off a small amount on the low end, but the upper end is the pocketbook breaker.) Usually the higher amounts are rewarded for repeat offenders or numerous violations of theft / infringement in the same case. ie; A video compilation or a website showing multiple stolen images.
I hope this helps you some in your endeavor to decipher some of this.

EDIT: Addendum.
Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State. (Disallows someone from claiming state rights to property that belongs to another when approached with a Federal violation. This can force either a Federal or State interventional action)

Nothing in this title annuls or limits any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State with respect to—
(1) subject matter that does not come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, including works of authorship not fixed in any tangible medium of expression; or (etc. etc - ds addition)
(Certain works while on basic analysis, may appear to be appropriate to 102 or 103, but may in fact fall into another section based upon several factors. Thus, individual State law would be entirely enforceable, while also the possibility of Federal intervention and relief may be sought. Under these circumstances, double jeopardy does not come into play and dual relief actions are constitutionally allowed)

[Alex Fisher]

I've never studied copyright law, but in general seeking relief under a federal statute does not preclude you from using state court.

A defendant, however, could remove to the proper federal district court under 28 U.S.C. §1441 (with federal subject matter jurisdiction undoubtedly satisfied when seeking relief under a federal statute).

Your main problem would be the excruciatingly slow pace of the case in federal court, especially if the defendant decides to stonewall you in discovery.

If the copyright law, which I have not read, specifies federal court as the sole arbiter of disputes under the statute, then this is moot and you could only sue in federal court.

[Alex Fisher]

It seems that federal courts do have exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising under federal copyright laws. See 28 U.S.C. §1338(a).

However the point still holds that, in general, just because you seek relief under a federal statute, does not mean you are barred from bringing your action in state court.

State courts can and sometimes do decide cases in which federal law controls.

Note: I wanted to edit my post above, but I cant seem to find the edit button. I apparently fail at the internet.

[Mike Peregrine]

Best solution is to always consult an attorney for copyright infringement and any question of law. Initial consults are almost always free, and they will answer your questions and advise you on the best course of action.

[Alex Fisher]

Best solution is to always consult an attorney for copyright infringement and any question of law. Initial consults are almost always free, and they will answer your questions and advise you on the best course of action.

Absolutely. Working pro se can be extremely frustrating and not worth your time, especially if you are not willing to put in the dozens, hundreds or even (in complex cases) thousands of hours needed to avoid the rampant pitfalls of the legal system and have your claim successfully adjudicated.

Even then, there is always the risk of going awry and subjecting yourself to judicial sanctions under FRCP Rule 11 (although courts have been loathe to impose sanctions on pro se litigants whose legal missteps are merely negligent rather than willful).

[Dennis Sherrod]

[QUOTE=Dennis Sherrod;174637]
2. As the second suggestion, contact a current practicing attorney that has experience in the state of your interest along with the experience in Federal practice as well as State experience in this field. I would suggest an attorney referral organization or someone you can trust that will recommend someone thoroughly knowledgeable in this field of practice.

I am not trying to pass on this, but as I said, this could go on and on, as this is a specialized field of practice and takes substantial time and involvement researching each state involved and as it relates to the Federal level.

================================================== =
Alex, you are right on the money with what you are saying. That is what I was trying to tell Ryan. Also, thats the reason I said what I did above.
Too much time involved trying to disuss cases online and not going to work that much for simple advice.

[David Drummond]

You guys might want to check the following clip for video belonging to yourself or someone you know. I found about 9 seconds of some of my own video in there, and I am fairly sure one or two of those tornadoes were shot by chasers active on ST.

http://everythinglubbock.com/content/fulltext/?sid=e10a8275c82da797e6f1bc5fd8bb24ac&cid=5617

I am not sure at this point how long the video will be up. I have a backup copy however.

[Brian Emfinger]

I stumbled upon this site a few days ago:

http://www.extremeweathernet.com/index.php

I noticed the tornadovidoes.net video from May 4, 2008 on there without their copyright logo so I let them know and Reed confirmed he didn't know anything about that site. There aren't too many videos on there but many look familiar and some were certainly shot by members here. It also looks like many were uploaded by the same person:

http://www.extremeweathernet.com/seemore.php?load=membersvid&uid=21

[Dennis Sherrod]

I stumbled upon this site a few days ago:

http://www.extremeweathernet.com/index.php

I noticed the tornadovidoes.net video from May 4, 2008 on there without their copyright logo so I let them know and Reed confirmed he didn't know anything about that site. There aren't too many videos on there but many look familiar and some were certainly shot by members here. It also looks like many were uploaded by the same person:

http://www.extremeweathernet.com/seemore.php?load=membersvid&uid=21

================================================== ==
I immediately contacted this site about their posting of copyrighted materials. Below is the the site's spokeperson's response. Definitely a positive response. If your material is used on this site without your consent, please contact the below person at the listed email address to have it removed.

EDIT: It "appears" that at least one, maybe 2 of the 3 members at this site may be members from this site comparing bios. Only a possibility, but a good one.
================================================== ==

From: Mark Palmer (markpalmer@yahoo.com)
Sent: Thu 5/01/08 1:08 PM
To: scg_llc@msn.com

Dennis,

We will be more than happy to remove the copyrighted videos that you feel are in violation, however, links to those videos would be helpful.

Mark


Name Dennis Sherrod
Email scg_llc@msn.com
Original Message Type - Complaint
Comments
You are hereby notified via site email on this 1st day of May, 2008, that several of your video segments posted are in violation of the U.S. Copyright Code. It is in the best interest of all involved and aggrieved parties that these issues are resolved forthwith.
Regards,
Dennis Sherrod

[David Drummond]

You you can't really "notify" someone of copyright violation, unless it is your own copyright that was violated, and then you have to be very specific. In other words, you can't represent anyone but yourself unless someone else gave you permission in writing to represent them. Either way, you have to be very specific as to your(or the person you rep) ownership and where it's located on their website.

[Dennis Sherrod]

David,
If you are referring to me and what I sent to this site, then please reread what was written and sent to that site.
The wording is very specific of it's wording and is explicitly non-representative of any person, group, or entity. There was no mention of specific names, places, segments, etc that would place a particular violation upon one particular posting. (ie: "several of your video segments posted are in violation of the U.S. Copyright Code.")
(ie:If your material is used on this site without your consent, please contact the below person at the listed email address to have it removed.)
That statement expressly states that whomever may own any of the copyrighted materials should contact that person listed to have it removed.
And again, if your comments are directed at me and what I wrote, please explain and show me the law that states someone can not write a memo, letter, or other correspondence of the nature that I wrote. Also, please explain how what was writen affected you in any manner. Otherwise, please reread the "law" that you are referring to and be specific in your statements.

As you did not say who you are referring to, if this was not directed at me, then please disregard.

[David Drummond]

What I am saying Dennis, is sending a blanket "you screwed up" statement to them will serve no purpose. I am talking about the email you quoted above that you sent to them. Even if they wanted to, they can't act on that.

What I am saying is, they can only act on removing any copyrighted content if it is:

A) SPECIFICALLY outlined in the notice EXACTLY what content is in violation and EXACTLY where it's located on their site, and;
B) The notice comes from the copyright holder, or their authorized representative.

Reasons for this are mostly because, while we are pretty sure they have tons of violating content there, unless we are a representative of each particular piece of content, we don't really KNOW for sure that they don't have some agreement with the original copyright holder.

That would sorta be like your neighbor borrowing your lawnmower, and me assuming that he stole it and go and jump on him for it, because I didn't know you let him borrow it.

All that said, yeah, we (members here at ST) pretty much realize that most if not all of the videos on that site are probably ripped, it has to be up to the individual owners to contact them about it. I know a few people that don't even really care if their stuff gets passed around.

Hope that clears up what I was trying to say. I am telling you this coming from an owner myself of several websites and hosting many, many others. There are certain things we have to have per the Digital Millinium Copyright Act to be able to take said offending materials down. Otherwise, anyone and everyone could come along and say anything is violating copyright. I hope you understand what I am trying to tell you here.

[Dennis Sherrod]

David,
Thanks. I do understand what you are saying also. Yet, what I did by sending this "notice", received the exact kind of response and cooperation that I believe we would all want from the owner/rep of the site. And..that is his statement of desire to resolve the errors.
This then places the engagement process of the owner of the videos to act with the owner / rep of that site if they so desire to have it removed.
One of my goals in initiating this process was to help stop some of the long, drawn out posts that we are all prone to slamming around here and to help see if we can nip some of these violations quickly.
I definitely realize what you have knowledge of in your field and what you do, as you nicely and adequately host my site also. But, I am also familiar with my area of practice even if I have not actively practiced in that field for a couple of years, thus my usage of very specific wording in what I sent to that site.
No hard feelings at all, David. Case Closed. (i hope)

[Gerrit Gulden]

I typed in Natures Fury on Youtube to see if Jim reed uploaded some footage and found this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPyfBIpezyA

Opening picture is Eric Nguyens, Then I see a Jeff Smith photo and tons more without Copyright Text.

The person that Posted is female, from Canada and doesnt seem to be affiliated with any stormchasers. Her Interests dont even include "weather".



---------Found Another-------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H46YQKzi-qw&feature=related

Person used StormVideo.Com clips and didnt give credit in the description which shows this person had no permission.










-gerrit

[Jeff Smith]

Just to clarify, that is another Jeff Smith--not me. I'm not sure that he's a member of ST but he's a great photographer...
...too many Jeff Smith's in the world...lol...

[rdale]

For a little backgrounder on copyright law - take a look at the lectures from http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978514

[Jim Saueressig]

Attn: Mike Hollingshead

http://www.flickr.com/photos/znaddanz/sets/957280

What an excuse:

Incredible images of Hurricanes- these are copyrighted by Mike Hollingshead- I am reproducing them here so as not to overload his site.

More of Mikes work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/waltzing_broonhilda/sets/72157600050856217

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26944087@N03/2519894053/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/buglugs/18846548


The Full Search (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Mike%20Hollingshead&w=all)

[Jim Saueressig]

KCUR News (http://publicbroadcasting.net/kcur/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1290645&sectionID=1)

http://media.publicbroadcasting.net/kcur/newsroom/images/2891069.jpg

Lists as file photo, wasn't this Hollingshead's?

[Mike Hollingshead]

If I had to guess, they lifted that from the Daily Mail article(looks like that one they had in there). If that's the case, it would have been real simple to find out whose image it was. One almost gets used to it! Thanks Jim.

[Jim Saueressig]

If I had to guess, they lifted that from the Daily Mail article(looks like that one they had in there). If that's the case, it would have been real simple to find out whose image it was. One almost gets used to it! Thanks Jim.

I suppose it comes with being a great photographer but it does stink that you kinda have to get used to it.

[B Doss]

Attention Mr. Hollingshed, again.:D

The latest rerun of your 6/13/2004 meso, LOL.

http://pixdaus.com/pics/1213538765srcMv7r.jpg

And linked to by http://www.reddit.com under Force of nature [pic]

[David Drummond]

Here's a winner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-50WgiNUyMc&feature=related

Not only did they steal Jim Reed's video, but read the text description on the right. They made up an entire story about it.

[Brandon Ivey]

Mike H.,

I did not have time to go through 14 pages of posts, so someone may have already brought this to your attention.

I was looking through a slideshow on weather.com entitled "Best of the Daily Weather Pic" and noticed at least two of your shots in there. #44 and #90 (out of 93 images).

It is funny how there is not much of a description next to those images. Who's mammatus shot is that on slide #82? I know I have seen that image before and think it was taken in Nebraska a few years ago.

http://www.weather.com/newscenter/slideshow/dwp.html?from=hp_dwp

[Alex Goldstein]

Mike H.,

I did not have time to go through 14 pages of posts, so someone may have already brought this to your attention.

I was looking through a slideshow on weather.com entitled "Best of the Daily Weather Pic" and noticed at least two of your shots in there. #44 and #90 (out of 93 images).

It is funny how there is not much of a description next to those images. Who's mammatus shot is that on slide #82? I know I have seen that image before and think it was taken in Nebraska a few years ago.

http://www.weather.com/newscenter/slideshow/dwp.html?from=hp_dwp

That mammatus pic is the avatar of Marko Korosec. I immediately recognized it as well... Hell of a shot.

[Danny Neal]

Another Hollingshead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khLcpi2HptM&feature=related)

He even has Mike's old web-page lol

[mike scantlin]

we should rename this thread to "look who's stealing Mike's sh*t!"

[Dann Cianca]

Mike wins again:

http://community.livejournal.com/twc_aficionados/847927.html#cutid1


Though, he his credited.

[Dick McGowan]

I think Mike needs an attorney like this one:

http://www.photoattorney.com/2008/06/photographer-gets-12-million-verdict.html

[mike scantlin]

woweeeeey. i need that lawyer. and i guess i need to be good at photography as well. :/

i was in Woodland Park, CO last week at the Dinosaur resources center and they just happened to have 2 of Mike's pictures up on the wall. i took some pictures. i will post them tonight.

[David Drummond]

I can tell you she is a fantastic attorney! She is working a case for me right now. I highly recommend her if you need to go after someone on copyright issues.

[Justin Teague]

I found one of Tony Laubach's photos on another chasers Facebook page....no credit given. I check on his page every few months after he used some of my images without giving credit. BTW, Matt.....are you ever going to give my video tape of the 4-15-06 tornado back? Do I need to seek legal action?

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=141878&id=226600662

[Shane Adams]

BTW, Matt.....are you ever going to give my video tape of the 4-15-06 tornado back? Do I need to seek legal action?

I knew it wasn't just me

[Steve Miller OK]

They were pretty quick about getting that facebook page down, eh?

[Tony Laubach]

They were pretty quick about getting that facebook page down, eh?

Yeah, my first infringement and I never even got to see it! LOL I wonder if its cause we're not friends.. LOL

[Justin Teague]

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/jmtrd6/MattPatterson1.jpg




I took screen caps.

[Tony Laubach]

Yup, that's my antenna.. LOL Assuming he yanked that from my website, he removed my copyright.

[Dennis Sherrod]

Unbelievable. Another fine member of this forum showing how good they are.
With this many thieves from this forum and that they get to stay members here, maybe they can start their own thread area.

[Heather Moser]

Tim Samaras's slow motion lightning videos are making the rounds on Youtube and a few other sites.

http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2008/08/07

EDIT: Just saw the post in weather and chasing too. I wasn't aware that other people were getting this kind of footage!

[Anthony Petito]

Mike H for the win...

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1593832/beautiful_but_dangerous/

Probably some other photo owners in there as well.

[Ryan McGinnis]

I can tell you she is a fantastic attorney! She is working a case for me right now. I highly recommend her if you need to go after someone on copyright issues.

Agreed -- I have no direct experience with her, but I've heard several very glowing tetimonials about her from other photographers. If you need someone who knows how to dropkick a client into paying up, she's your gal.

[David Schuttler]

Here is one of MH's on a City of Tulsa webpage i ran across today
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/PublicSafety/HazMit/index.asp

[Danny Neal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN2_czSBSD0&NR=1
A Jim Reed.

[Adam Lucio]

Im no law expert so forgive me if this is a dumb question.

In regards to reeds video linked above, the person gives all credit to jim reed and left the watermark in....even if he never asked jim reed for permission to do that is that still an infringement?

[Danny Neal]

Im no law expert so forgive me if this is a dumb question.

In regards to reeds video linked above, the person gives all credit to jim reed and left the watermark in....even if he never asked jim reed for permission to do that is that still an infringement?

I believe so, he is taking their video under their name and replaying it under their account. Its like me recording a White Sox game and then reposting it under my account, or the same with like a Simpson's episode. Clearly I didn't create it and I am not saying I did, BUT the simple fact that I am taking copywritten material and replaying it without the expressed written consent of "MLB " or FOX broadcast could leave me S.O.L lol

[David Drummond]

Unless you have explicit (preferably written) permission from the copyright owner, any distribution of content on the part of anyone else is absolutely illegal. Whether or not they decide to pursue you for it is another matter.

I personally allow it as long as they didn't alter it in any way and left my website URL/copyright mark intact. Other folks feel different. Just ask Viacom.

[Dan Robinson]

David and Danny are correct - any unauthorized reposting of copyrighted footage is actionable infringement. DMCA protects YouTube in this instance (for now anyway) but does not protect the poster of the video if the copyright holder were to pursue it.

I am of the opinion that posting footage on mass distribution channels such as YouTube not only diminishes the value of said footage, but is yet another instance of footage being given away to help commercial interests without the photographer seeing any benefit. Any publicity value gained by such exposure is only beneficial to the photographer when only 'snippets' or 'teasers' of the footage are given (similar to a movie preview). If the entire clip, or at least the 'meat' of the footage is shown, there is no incentive for a viewer to seek it out elsewhere (via DVD, TV show, etc), thus its diminished value. Never-before seen footage (or footage played on news networks briefly, then pulled after a few days) has greater inherent value to producers, as there is more of an audience willing to tune in to see it (more of an audience means more advertising revenue, which is what makes the media world go 'round).

YouTube has grown significant enough in modern culture to have the potential to reach a large percentage of conventional television viewers. As such, a video that gets major attention on YouTube may be considered 'played out' by potential buyers. Think about it - how many will tune in to see Tim Samaras' footage when it finally airs on NG? How many would make time to watch if the other recently-gone-viral lightning video was going to be on the show instead?

I think YouTube may be valuable advertising for a chaser as long as you don't give all your goods away on it. Give them just enough so they will want to see more.

[Danny Neal]

StormChaser3751 (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=stormchaser3751) over 475 videos most of them are storm orientated. Off hand I saw Chris Collura's video from Florida, dunno if he got the description off his site or what but it is very detailed.

Who he is. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkhX8n-MzEE)

[Dan Robinson]

Another case of someone taking videos and branding them as their own. A lot of chaser videos in this user's account:

http://www.liveleak.com/user/fecks

[Dann Cianca]

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/10,88722,5596746,Traby_powietrzne_niszcza_Polske.h tml

Can't understand because it's in Polish, but the clip about 10 seconds in looks an awful lot like one Tony Laubach took in February in Tennessee. Anyone else have footage on there?

[Tyler Burg]

Not necessarily copyright infringement, but are claiming one of Mike H. images to be the early stages of hurricane katrina, but then someone 'corrected it' as a storm from austrialia months ago. LOL I thought this was funny...

Click Here (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.persianstudents.org/archives/katrina_image.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.persianstudents.org/archives/001906.html&h=300&w=400&sz=15&hl=en&start=1&um=1&usg=__V5cFcsdXWhCasIY65fsaYLlztqE=&tbnid=IQ2h1WszWESyrM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkatrina%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dco m.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7GPTB_enUS288%26sa%3DN)

[Paul Hadfield]

My sister forwarded a powerpoint presentation that was chock full of lightning images I think some of you may recognize. It's one of those deals that likely has or at least may take on a life like some of Mike's work unfortunately.

I've uploaded it to my webhost for your convenience. The statement though well intended seems to avoid the photographers or whether they were consulted. I certainly hope they were. Apologies if this has already been addressed.

=====

FW: Fascinating Photos

Fascinating photos that show the power and beauty of lightening. In the past, we were lucky to catch a fleeting glimpse of just one of these images. Digital photography and the Internet has made it possible to savor the magnificence of all of them that are shown in this PowerPoint presentation. Enjoy.

http://pawleewurx.com/st/SHOCKING_PICTURES.pps (1.58 MB)

[Benjamin Rock]

wow, thefinitely some lightning shots I recognize on there.. Why do people have to take what is not theirs? Is it to try and look better than they are? If you cant go out in the storms and take the vids and pics yourself, then dont claim them..Storm Chasers put their own lives on the line to get those shots. Credit to those where credit is due! By the way, nice shots!!

[Eric Whitehill]

My sister forwarded a powerpoint presentation that was chock full of lightning images I think some of you may recognize. It's one of those deals that likely has or at least may take on a life like some of Mike's work unfortunately.

I've uploaded it to my webhost for your convenience. The statement though well intended seems to avoid the photographers or whether they were consulted. I certainly hope they were. Apologies if this has already been addressed.


Paul:

Can we find out more details on this? Because obviously, if these pictures were indeed infringed upon, I think it would be acceptable to put some additional information about this, perhaps who the company is? That way those of us chasers can at least not purchase or utilize this company that has infringed upon the work.

Thanks.

[Paul Hadfield]

Paul:

Can we find out more details on this? Because obviously, if these pictures were indeed infringed upon, I think it would be acceptable to put some additional information about this, perhaps who the company is? That way those of us chasers can at least not purchase or utilize this company that has infringed upon the work.

Thanks.