Online Blog being used for Defamation of Character

Hi All. I need your advice.

Im a photographer and asked a friend to develop my website. During the development period (about 1 week), the working site was put on a “test” domain so I can preview the on going design to see if its ok or not.

During that time, a random photographer called me and accused me as a thief, unethical, fraud, etc. I thought it was a joke at first. He told me that, I copied his site and also took his photos. I called my web designer and told her about it, she told me that the site came from a template and photos were a free stock photo. In any case, we still put the site down and decided to completely redesign the site to avoid and issues. So I went ahead and bought a new template at templatemonster.com .

When I searched the web under my name, I came across this other photographer’s web blog. In his blog, he called me a fraud, theft, unethical, and so on. He is defamation my character. He is ruining my reputation online due to his blog being the #1 on google if you search for my name. In addition, his 3rd party readers have called me on the phone and accused me as well. He even tried to send an e-mail to my employer to get me fired. This guy just won’t stop.

I am totally innocent of this and don’t know anything about website design. I am not sure what to do but I just want this guy’s blog to not exist because he is using my name on his blog and taking me liable for anything that happened. What do I do ?

(this is his blog)
http://planetneil.com/tangents/2007/09/01/you-know-youve-arrived-when


Ps. I tried talking to him but he doesn't listen. He is so rude and accuses me on the phone. I think he knows Im a young female so he is taking advantage of me as being weak. Please HELP.

 

ouch kick his butt

 

Nothing really you can do, looks like the designer took the design and text. Unfortunately for you they are being petty about it. In the end you are responsible for the mistakes your contractors make. Good luck...

 

time to get a lawyer

 

Just let it go.
Focus on building your website and applying SEO tips and you'll outrank him in no time.

 

I am not 100% sure about this and I am definitely not a lawyer but I think if he is making false accusations about you that is libel regardless if it's online or in another form of media. If you have contacted him and tried to correct him and he still continues he is in a vulnerable position and in the wrong. You actually may be in a legal position to have his website shut down or sue him.

It would be best to contact a real lawyer and advise him of what is going on. Maybe all you need the lawyer to do is send a cease and desist letter. That might be enough to scare the fellow to drop all mention of your name on his website.

 

Yes, this is called libel. You can sue him for defamation, but I'm not sure if its worth it for you or not, because you WILL need to go to court and WILL need a lawyer.

If its that big of a deal to you, and you're losing large amounts of money on it, then go for it. If not, then you can always send him a message saying what he is doing is libel, and thats its illegal around the world, and link/quote him to the respective laws.

It might scare him off enough.

 

Interesting what my web stats will show up.

And here we are ...


To everyone who has responded here, or tried to leave (mostly abusive) comments on my blog ... please read the sequence of events there.


But to recap anyway:
1. my website is NOT a template. It was designed for me by a team that I paid, and who came up with an original design, fitting my requests.


2. Those images are NOT royalty-free images. They were ripped from my website of work that I had done.

And to anyone who thinks they were royalty-free images, think for a moment (while looking at the screenshots of mandy's website as it existed then) ... how on earth did a royalty-free image land up in EXACTLY the same page on that website, cropped to EXACTLY the same size ? It just isn't possible in the realm of 'coincidences'. The only rational explanation is .. that it was ripped off along with my website.

(But, I state this clearly in that blog entry.)


3. I had to smile at being the "random photographer" who called her. I found her website with my text and images, when I searched for my business name. Nothing random there. She and her web desiger targeted my website. They found me ... and I noticed.


4. "When I searched the web under my name, I came across this other photographer’s web blog."
hmmm .. no searches were needed. I emailed Mandy my blog entry even before I called her that first day that I became aware of this debacle. No under-hand moves there ... I was quite direct and open about my actions. No searches needed to find me.


5. "He even tried to send an e-mail to my employer to get me fired."
I didn't send an email to your employer.
Your wording there is already a contradiction .. I "tried" to send an email? But failed ? Someone intercepted it before your boss saw it ? I don't understand the word "tried" there. I either did, or didn't. But .. you already know I didn't.


6. "I am totally innocent of this ..."
I have the screengrabs of all the pages. I posted a few of them. They are there to be seen.
And not only were *I* ripped off, but another photographer as well. There is a screenshot of text with his name even. Yup, that's how sloppy they were in ripping of other people's websites.
The details are there in the blog entry.

7. "Ps. I tried talking to him but he doesn't listen. He is so rude and accuses me on the phone."
Not quite. I phoned Mandy and left a message, and sent an email with the blog entry. Mandy called me the next day, quite indignant .. and slammed the phone down on me when I presented her with the irrefutable evidence. No rudeness there. Juuuuust the facts.


8. "I think he knows Im a young female so he is taking advantage of me as being weak."
Nice move! Appealing to everyone by acting the victim here.


9. "During the development period (about 1 week), the working site was put on a “test” domain so I can preview the on going design to see if its ok or not.'

I would disagree strongly with this assertion. I discovered Mandy's site with a Google search. MY name showed up her website .... which was an duplicate of mine. The only way that Google would have indexed this is,

.. a .. if it had been linked from another website which is publically available. Which means the website had gone live. There is NO way Google would be able to index a test website that is unlinked.

.. b .. Google was able to index her site with MY info, because her "web designer" made a mistake and left one page up which still had my info. And that is how this was discovered.


Anyeeeeway .. as for comments about libel or slander.
This would be true if my comments were unfounded. But they're not. I have the evidence (of which I posted some in that blog entry.) So there are NO false accusations there. I can readily substantiate everything I say with evidence that was so amply provided to me.

When I spoke to the "web designer" she also mentioned taking this up legally. I dared her to.


Also, if any of the administrators of this forum would like to contact me about any of this, my info is readily available on my website.


Neil.

 

Well it looked like from your blog that the web designer emailed you some things that were pretty professional and easy going. I do not know what went on with the phone call between you two, but if I was basing it off the emails that you got from the web designer, then I would say that you were just going a little overboard with the whole situation since it could have been easily resolved. Funny thing is that I found quite a few templates that your site could have come from. It doesn't really look like your "web designer" made it from scratch. They probably took a template then changed it to your specifications, like many designers do. Now I am not going to say anything about the pictures, because those were definitely ripped, but it looks like the other party is trying to resolve this issue with you from what I read, so instead of trying to rub people's faces int their mistakes, why dont you just try and work it out without blowing it into the publics eyes. Let's try to be the smarter business and stop trying to drum up business for your self.

 

Please please please show me a link to a template which looks like my website.

As for the email being reasonable ? How do you get that? (Since the "web designer" is insistent with her blatant lies?)

And I'm curious .. how am I drumming up business for myself with posting that entry?
I'd like to see a logical explanation of how this would be a feasible course of action for more work?

 

This is getting interesting.

Neil, any evidence that proves that you own the content and he/she copied it?

 

Keep trying to talk to him is what I would suggest, but he whatever he says got some truth and he turns it to his opinion it wouldn't be considered Defamation.

 

if its from a template its public domain which anyone can sell/own. i wouldn't care about what this 'guy' says as his is from a template as well and doesn't hold any copyrights. as far as char. def. that is totally different.

 

Yes. For starters, in that blog entry, I show the links where I originally posted about those images and the shoots. That alone should convince you.

And for the hardcore, I have the raw files of those images.

As for proof that the website was copied by the "web designer" .. I have the screenshot that shows my Google search and how my name and business name comes with Mandy's website. Google snagged what was there.


As for proof that the website is MINE ... well, look at it this way .. my website is still up.
The others were taken down. So who is acting guilty here ?


If more proof is needed, I have reams of emails with my web designer team. I have the JPGs of the tentative opening page layout, and JPGs of subsequent changes that I asked for, before the HTML code was implemented.

There's a clear trail here were I can prove to anyone, incl Judge Judy, that that website and the images are mine.


And then we're not even touching on how Thomas Nance's name appears on Mandy's text in that screenshot.

*I* wasn't the only photographer whose work was pilfered from.

 

Neil I can appreciate the distaste you have in your mouth for this whole situation... you appear to be a pretty professional photographer...

Unfortunately, that's where your professionalism ended... you lack good business judgment, conduct and etiquette and it appears your only desire now is to rip open the wounds further and continue pouring gallons of salt in it.

Be the professional that is obviously visible in your work and remove that rubbish from your blog -- as it taints your own services... how many customers do you think pass you up because you are obviously involved in something they don't wish to be... you do support negative promotions -- correct? ...on an otherwise professional website... surely many-a-customers just don't wish to get involved with a professional that (rightly or wrongly) smeers people's names and reputation - just because they can.

No good comes from this style of vigilante justice... do yourself a big favor... take the matter private and do it legally threw an attorney... or just drop it.

Rod

 

Once again, please please please provide links to this template.

And similarly, please please please provide links to the "royalty-free galleries".



But I can tell you now .. those don't exist.

 

Rod ... I had let this go. *I* wasn't the one who started this thread and tried to drum up support by further propagating the deceit.

 

Neil is a well known and well respected photographer. Neil's work is technically fantastic and he has also taught seminars at popular conventions on his style of shooting. Neil's personal knowledge base is sought out by many and his professionalism is of the highest standards.

I know you may not see it on this forum, but Neil is very much in the right on this issue. Neil's site was completely lifted. I have followed this incident from the start and have seen first hand that portions of Neil's site, including text , appearing directly on the site in question. Other photographers sites were also lifted for text, including one who's name appeared on the site in question.

Images on web sites are not public domain. Images on web sites are not royalty free. Images on web sites are not stock photography. Images are copyrighted and the private property of the people or companies who create them. The penalties for copyright violations for commercial gain are severe if done through the courts with images copyrighted by the US Copyright Office.

Get past the emotion of the original poster seeking sympathy. She is not the victim here, she is the perpetrator. She has not been wronged, she has wronged someone and is now seeking to feel better about it. What she did is wrong and she'd rather go to bed feeling good about herself than bad about herself. Well it ain't gonna happen.

-Steven Frischling

 

Wow, I just stumbled upon this forum and joined. What an eye-opener!

This is an interesting thread. After reading the blog and seeing the images and the apparently blatant theft, I'm curious as to why Neil is being castigated as unprofessional, petty and cruel when he seems to be in fact the victim here. As a professional photographer myself, I would be furious if someone ripped off my images in such a no-brainer-obvious way; this sort of theft would likely prompt some fairly major legal action along the lines of copyright infringement, intellectual property rights infringement, and so on. Throwing a pity-party because "I'm a poor defenseless little girl" is a load of crap and a poor way to do business.

Would it be ok if I decided to start up a car manufacturing company and then go out and buy Chevrolets and rebadge them as my own company's car? Maybe I should go and take some images off Cliff Mautner's site or Joe Buissink's site to promote my own business; after all, we're all three of us wedding photographers and so I'm merely promoting my genre, not their images, right?

Technically, I believe that an accusation of libel is dependent upon whether the person being "defamed" has actually performed the act he (or she, in this case) is being accused of. If the person is party to an illegal act, then that person has no character to be defamed. In this case, it appears -- not I say APPEARS -- that Neil's website was indeed boosted, images and all, and therefore this would not be libelous. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, so take that for what it's worth.

Just my newbie $0.02...

Edited to add: If the OP was forced to rely on someone else's photography in order to get business, what does that say about her professionalism and her own skills?

 

I'm an honest broker here... unbias and taking no position on either side.

The first 3 words (bolded) are the most important...

Rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter that you "let it go," "it doesn't matter who started this thread", nor does it matter if you think "they are drumming up support by further propagating the deceit"...

BECAUSE:

Your public blog post is still public (thus you "allegedly" propagated deceit in saying "you let it go" when you didn't)...

This thread was started "allegedly" because of the existence of the blog post (unless you can think of another reason) - I suspect the opening poster wouldn't have needed public support if the matter was still a private one (thus you "allegedly" escalated a private dispute and [I assumed] without legal representation) to a public one...

Lastly using the opening posters exact reference:

Whether these words are sincere words or not... your own actions "here" suggest you "don't listen"... and while much of FishFoto words are accurate - you have clearly ignored the protection of your rights, in favor of multiple counts of public defamation -- where the US Copyright Office cannot help you.

Your:

...these are issues for attorneys to grapple with... not public opinion... and your repeated desire to continue this without legal representation... is suggestive that at one time your rights "allegedly" were violated... but you have moved well beyond that and now are "allegedly" violating someone elses rights.

It is pretty cut & dry - two wrong don't make a right and you have clearly misrepresented yourself - here (just in your last answer to me).

No good comes out of public disclosures -- your own words do deceive you.