An UK garments manufacturer Slick Activewear - has used one of my photofraphs to create a t-shirt front image.
They have captured the silhouette from the image and have modified it a bit. They clame this is not an infringement since they created a different graphic and they can be inspired from various sources.
However they have removed the images from the original link and created a new design to replace the stolen one:
http://www.slickactivewear.co.uk/shop/product_info.php?cPath=17_37&produ...
My original photo can be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spearfish/2391227875/in/set-721576038578716...
The Slick Activewear first design can be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spearfish/3260330588/
A comparison can be found here:
http://www.spearfish.org/e107_files/public/1233571111_164_FT31386_silhou...
They continue to refuse the fact of the infringement - do I have the right to sue them?
Cheers,
Ivan
Thanks guys!
I am trying to contact an IPP lawyer and will post you more details.
Besides, I have also managed to find another company's logo Slck Activewear has copied and used in their designs.
Thanks again!
The link was working for me so I've taken the liberty of copying the photo to here.
I had the opposite problem, I couldn't clearly make out the Flickr images of designs.
©A admin
The link at http://www.spearfish.org/e107_files/public/1233571111_164_FT31386_silhou... isn't working so I can't see the comparison there. The design on the shirts is significantly different from the shot of yours on Flickr and I don't think there is enough detail in the shirt designs (silhouettes are hard to prove paternity with) on the shop site to show that it's more likely than not that your image was used as the basis.
There are a number of significant differences. More important though is the lack of specific similarities - details, angles, exact shapes of the edge of the figure. You'd need to be able to show that they had access to your original before they produced 'their' design. Have they admitted that your design was involved? If so then I think you have a case but if they are just arguing that there is no connection and it's only coincidence then I think you'll have a struggle to show plagiarism.
If you can get enough evidence for a case then IPP (and, no doubt others) will take the case on a no win, no fee basis. You'll still need to be prepared to pay out for court costs and for loss insurance (to cover their costs if you lose) but nearly all cases are settled one way or another before those costs arise.
David Hoffman
From your comparison it appears they have not used your image as 'inspiration', they've copied it then altered it somewhat. It remains substantially recognisable as a copy of your work, and is therefore an infringement.
Since they aren't admitting liability and are arguing that theirs is an original work, you will need to get a lawyer involved in order to take this further. Preferably this should be someone with a background in IP law. http://copyrightaction.com/link/intellectual-property-protection may be helpful.
Slick's position appears untenable to me, but bluff is a common way to deflect such claims. I imagine they'll cave in at first sight of a solicitor's letter because if it goes to court they will almost certainly lose and have to cover your costs if they do. However you will need to consider whether the usage and the fee you should have received make the cost and risk of court proceedings advisable.
©A admin
Post new comment