If you have not heard this story yet, you should read it

[G+_Nate Serefine]

If you have not heard this story yet, you should read it. Short version is that a radio station stole an image from a photographer, got caught and is now blowing off the photographer as "too #&&*@# bad for you".. interesting how a copyright enforcer and chest beater behaves when they think they can get away with it. 

http://shuttercliq.com/big-business-versus-photographer-social-media-destruction/

[G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ]

The longer version is that the photographer was once a school teacher who last year was convicted of stealing $40k from her district. She spent months lying to her teacher's union, manipulating the school board, and trying to "fix" the problem before finally coming clean and paying back the $40k. 

 

Now the two stories are NOT legally connected and her prior transgressions do nothing to change the fact that the radio station is using her work without proper compensation, but that little tidbit should be kept in the back of our minds before we go screaming "death to the thief!"

[G+_Mike Sweeney]

I really do not see any connection between her past and what the radio station did. 

 

Also, I would like to see a source for this information since I found over 25 people with the same name. If you are going to bring up something like this, back it up. It would be interesting to see how someone convicted last year of such theft is free to walk about as a business owner. So far I've found a photographer, a book author, a public speaker plus others all with the same name.

[G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ]

It's possible that it's a different person, but how many Barbi Guild Camerons are there in Kemptville, Ottowa?

 

http://www.recorder.ca/2012/01/25/teacher-stole-40000

 

She was given a conditional sentence of two years with 18 months in house arrest except for work.

 

http://www.fm975kemptville.com/index.php/news/158-north-grenville-teacher-escapes-jail-time

 

Strangely, her Shuttercliq account has been closed.

 

-- And we don't have any clue what she put in her letter to the radio station. (Supposedly she asked for $2k)

 

But we do have the response of the radio station:

http://www.facebook.com/TheNewHot899/posts/434681159940613

 

As I wrote in my post, they two are not LEGALLY connected. I absolutely believe she is entitled to compensation for the use of her work. Furthermore, the Radio Station really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. They took a picture off the Internet and used it in a campaign that would make them money. The only question is the matter of the compensation...

 

But if this is indeed the same woman, we already know that she is really good at manipulating people to gain sympathy for her cause. THAT is how the cases are connected. (again... if it actually IS the same person.)

[G+_Mike Sweeney]

The Shuttercliq account may be the result of my sending your information over to one of the admins there as an "FYI - Be warned" type of thing. Then again, maybe not.  

 

Personally speaking, I dont give a damn what she has done before. What I care about is someone like the radio station owners stealing after making such a big deal about music copyright infringements. 

 

There is nothing "innocent" about scouring the internet for images. They could have just as easily gone to any number of stock sites (as they even said) and for a few bucks licensed a generic image. Or they could have contacted her first as several folks have done for my own work. or if they want to be the innocent, they could  have search for CC (creative commons) images and probably found something that would have worked by giving credit and so on. They choose to be lazy. 

 

I've been on the receiving end of the music industry's letters (wrongly as it was) and they do not ask for a paltry amount up front, they go for the throat and work backwards if at all. Which is all she did. They also dont care if one person downloaded it or a thousand. She picked a number.. they didnt like it and now they duke it out. I'm not sure how the laws in Canada would work but here in the US without a copyright registration on that image, the best would be a few hundred bucks if that. With the registration, it can be considerable more. I dont find her number out of line with a clear case of infringement no matter how "innocent". But, I think she should have negotiated something rather then being a hardass about it.

 

The excuse of "no copyright warnings" is as red herring. Here in the US, we have not needed to watermark or stamp our images for years. Copyright is owned by the creator unless you have something along the lines of "Work for hire". So unless you have permission from the owner, you dont get to use it. No matter where you found it. The internet does not equate to "free".