My image was stolen and used on a postage stamp

[grsnovi]

You can't get blood from a stone.

 

[sybersitizen]

Depictions of the bird, the St. Lucia parrot, appear on many stamps, unsurprisingly mostly from St. Lucia, so you'd have to "prove" that the Nevis image couldnt have come from anywhere else

I don't think there's any doubt about the relationship of the two images. And since the one on the left was published on the Internet three years before the stamp was released, there can't be much doubt about which existed first.

 

[mamallama]

Depictions of the bird, the St. Lucia parrot, appear on many stamps, unsurprisingly mostly from St. Lucia, so you'd have to "prove" that the Nevis image couldnt have come from anywhere else

I don't think there's any doubt about the relationship of the two images. And since the one on the left was published on the Internet two years before the stamp was released, there can't be much doubt about which existed first.

The question is what is it worth to pursue for an obscure eight year old stamp from an even more obscure country?

 

[sybersitizen]

Depictions of the bird, the St. Lucia parrot, appear on many stamps, unsurprisingly mostly from St. Lucia, so you'd have to "prove" that the Nevis image couldnt have come from anywhere else

I don't think there's any doubt about the relationship of the two images. And since the one on the left was published on the Internet three years before the stamp was released, there can't be much doubt about which existed first.

The question is what is it worth to pursue for an obscure eight year old stamp from an even more obscure country?

The question I addressed was about "proving" that the Nevis image couldn't have come from anywhere else.

The similarities are inescapable. If the Nevis version didn't come from the image on the left, the only other logical assumptions I can think of would be that 1) both of them came from some other previous image, or 2) the Nevis version came from some intermediate version of the one on the left, made by someone else, and Nevis never knew anything about the one on the left. If neither of those hypothetical images can be found to have existed, the evidence indicates that the one on the right must have come from the one on the left.

I already said earlier that the OP should consult a copyright lawyer to explore the options of actually doing anything about this.

 

[LeicaEye]

Depictions of the bird, the St. Lucia parrot, appear on many stamps, unsurprisingly mostly from St. Lucia, so you'd have to "prove" that the Nevis image couldnt have come from anywhere else

I don't think there's any doubt about the relationship of the two images. And since the one on the left was published on the Internet two years before the stamp was released, there can't be much doubt about which existed first.

The question is what is it worth to pursue for an obscure eight year old stamp from an even more obscure country?

The question I addressed was about "proving" that the Nevis image couldn't have come from anywhere else.

The similarities are inescapable. If the Nevis version didn't come from the image on the left, the only other logical assumptions I can think of would be that 1) both of them came from some other previous image, or 2) the Nevis version came from some intermediate version of the one on the left, made by someone else, and Nevis never knew anything about the one on the left. If neither of those hypothetical images can be found to have existed, the evidence indicates that the one on the right must have come from the one on the left.

Agree/Disagree -- If the Stamp image was stolen - Sad On Those That Stole It.. In any event IIMHO - it's Move On Time.... L

--
“Hold the vision, trust the process.” –

 

[sybersitizen]

The question I addressed was about "proving" that the Nevis image couldn't have come from anywhere else.

The similarities are inescapable. If the Nevis version didn't come from the image on the left, the only other logical assumptions I can think of would be that 1) both of them came from some other previous image, or 2) the Nevis version came from some intermediate version of the one on the left, made by someone else, and Nevis never knew anything about the one on the left. If neither of those hypothetical images can be found to have existed, the evidence indicates that the one on the right must have come from the one on the left.

Agree/Disagree --

What does agree/disagree mean? Do you disagree with something I actually wrote there?

If the Stamp image was stolen - Sad On Those That Stole It.. In any event IIMHO - it's Move On Time.... L

It's up to the OP to choose to consult a lawyer to explore options, even if the chances of accomplishing anything are near zero. He might prefer not to move on, which is okay with me if that's what he wants.

 

[LeicaEye]

The question I addressed was about "proving" that the Nevis image couldn't have come from anywhere else.

The similarities are inescapable. If the Nevis version didn't come from the image on the left, the only other logical assumptions I can think of would be that 1) both of them came from some other previous image, or 2) the Nevis version came from some intermediate version of the one on the left, made by someone else, and Nevis never knew anything about the one on the left. If neither of those hypothetical images can be found to have existed, the evidence indicates that the one on the right must have come from the one on the left.

Agree/Disagree --

What does agree/disagree mean? Do you disagree with something I actually wrote there?

If the Stamp image was stolen - Sad On Those That Stole It.. In any event IIMHO - it's Move On Time.... L

It's up to the OP to choose to consult a lawyer to explore options, even if the chances of accomplishing anything are near zero. He might prefer not to move on, which is okay with me if that's what he wants.

Totally Agree. My comment was IMHO.. L

 

[Bobthearch]

It's actually a bit humorous that someone's photo was used on a postage stamp, and they didn't find out about it until 8 years later.

Goes to show how obscure the stamp, and that entire country, is. And it speaks to the likelihood of receiving meaningful compensation.

If I were the photographer eight years later, I'd ask for a letter of acknowledgement that I could frame for the office.

 

[LeicaEye]

It's actually a bit humorous that someone's photo was used on a postage stamp, and they didn't find out about it until 8 years later.

Goes to show how obscure the stamp, and that entire country, is. And it speaks to the likelihood of receiving meaningful compensation.

If I were the photographer eight years later, I'd ask for a letter of acknowledgement that I could frame for the office.

Thats if the letter ever gets to anyone in authority!! L

 

[JahnG]

Depictions of the bird, the St. Lucia parrot, appear on many stamps, unsurprisingly mostly from St. Lucia, so you'd have to "prove" that the Nevis image couldnt have come from anywhere else

I don't think there's any doubt about the relationship of the two images. And since the one on the left was published on the Internet two years before the stamp was released, there can't be much doubt about which existed first.

The question is what is it worth to pursue for an obscure eight year old stamp from an even more obscure country?

True.

However right the OP might be, in reality the possibility to get any kind of significant compensation from the postal system of a small island is most probably minimal. It might end like when people sue their neighbor. They are finally proven right, fine, but have to pay their own juridical costs of possibly tens of thousands.

A lot of small countries in the world have earlier got a living by selling stamps to collectors abroad. But this kind of business is probably dwindling because collecting stamps doesn't seem to be popular anymore?

BTW is this also a "one-post" new member? I have seen quite many "one-posters" during the years and I have been wondering why anybody first makes the trouble to be a DPR member but then just stops there?

Jahn

 

[LeicaEye]

Depictions of the bird, the St. Lucia parrot, appear on many stamps, unsurprisingly mostly from St. Lucia, so you'd have to "prove" that the Nevis image couldnt have come from anywhere else

I don't think there's any doubt about the relationship of the two images. And since the one on the left was published on the Internet two years before the stamp was released, there can't be much doubt about which existed first.

The question is what is it worth to pursue for an obscure eight year old stamp from an even more obscure country?

True.

However right the OP might be, in reality the possibility to get any kind of significant compensation from the postal system of a small island is most probably minimal. It might end like when people sue their neighbor. They are finally proven right, fine, but have to pay their own juridical costs of possibly tens of thousands.

A lot of small countries in the world have earlier got a living by selling stamps to collectors abroad. But this kind of business is probably dwindling because collecting stamps doesn't seem to be popular anymore?

BTW is this also a "one-post" new member? I have seen quite many "one-posters" during the years and I have been wondering why anybody first makes the trouble to be a DPR member but then just stops there?

Jahn

They want the adoration!!

--
“Hold the vision, trust the process.” –

 

[JahnG]

Depictions of the bird, the St. Lucia parrot, appear on many stamps, unsurprisingly mostly from St. Lucia, so you'd have to "prove" that the Nevis image couldnt have come from anywhere else

I don't think there's any doubt about the relationship of the two images. And since the one on the left was published on the Internet two years before the stamp was released, there can't be much doubt about which existed first.

The question is what is it worth to pursue for an obscure eight year old stamp from an even more obscure country?

True.

However right the OP might be, in reality the possibility to get any kind of significant compensation from the postal system of a small island is most probably minimal. It might end like when people sue their neighbor. They are finally proven right, fine, but have to pay their own juridical costs of possibly tens of thousands.

A lot of small countries in the world have earlier got a living by selling stamps to collectors abroad. But this kind of business is probably dwindling because collecting stamps doesn't seem to be popular anymore?

BTW is this also a "one-post" new member? I have seen quite many "one-posters" during the years and I have been wondering why anybody first makes the trouble to be a DPR member but then just stops there?

Jahn

They want the adoration!!

Hmm, might very well be.

 

[BrownieVet]

Re: My image was stolen and used on a postage stamp

Loading…

www.demilked.com

Consider the above incident.

 

[mamallama]

Depictions of the bird, the St. Lucia parrot, appear on many stamps, unsurprisingly mostly from St. Lucia, so you'd have to "prove" that the Nevis image couldnt have come from anywhere else

I don't think there's any doubt about the relationship of the two images. And since the one on the left was published on the Internet three years before the stamp was released, there can't be much doubt about which existed first.

The question is what is it worth to pursue for an obscure eight year old stamp from an even more obscure country?

The question I addressed was about "proving" that the Nevis image couldn't have come from anywhere else.

There is no dispute that it is highly unlikely, but not absolutely impossible.

The similarities are inescapable. If the Nevis version didn't come from the image on the left, the only other logical assumptions I can think of would be that 1) both of them came from some other previous image, or 2) the Nevis version came from some intermediate version of the one on the left, made by someone else, and Nevis never knew anything about the one on the left. If neither of those hypothetical images can be found to have existed, the evidence indicates that the one on the right must have come from the one on the left.

I already said earlier that the OP should consult a copyright lawyer to explore the options of actually doing anything about this.

What could any lawyer tell you about what it's worth to pursue?

Money? I doubt there is much to gain.

Publicity? I think what's he has gotten on this forum is about all there is to get.

Revenge? That's a personal choice, not a lawyer decision.

What else?

 

[LeicaEye]

Depictions of the bird, the St. Lucia parrot, appear on many stamps, unsurprisingly mostly from St. Lucia, so you'd have to "prove" that the Nevis image couldnt have come from anywhere else

I don't think there's any doubt about the relationship of the two images. And since the one on the left was published on the Internet three years before the stamp was released, there can't be much doubt about which existed first.

The question is what is it worth to pursue for an obscure eight year old stamp from an even more obscure country?

The question I addressed was about "proving" that the Nevis image couldn't have come from anywhere else.

There is no dispute that it is highly unlikely, but not absolutely impossible.

The similarities are inescapable. If the Nevis version didn't come from the image on the left, the only other logical assumptions I can think of would be that 1) both of them came from some other previous image, or 2) the Nevis version came from some intermediate version of the one on the left, made by someone else, and Nevis never knew anything about the one on the left. If neither of those hypothetical images can be found to have existed, the evidence indicates that the one on the right must have come from the one on the left.

I already said earlier that the OP should consult a copyright lawyer to explore the options of actually doing anything about this.

What could any lawyer tell you about what it's worth to pursue?

Money? I doubt there is much to gain.

Publicity? I think what's he has gotten on this forum is about all there is to get.

Revenge? That's a personal choice, not a lawyer decision.

What else?

Decide who is buying the Mystic Mountain Sipping Hooch :-D

--
“Hold the vision, trust the process.” –

 

[sybersitizen]

Depictions of the bird, the St. Lucia parrot, appear on many stamps, unsurprisingly mostly from St. Lucia, so you'd have to "prove" that the Nevis image couldnt have come from anywhere else

I don't think there's any doubt about the relationship of the two images. And since the one on the left was published on the Internet three years before the stamp was released, there can't be much doubt about which existed first.

The question is what is it worth to pursue for an obscure eight year old stamp from an even more obscure country?

The question I addressed was about "proving" that the Nevis image couldn't have come from anywhere else.

There is no dispute that it is highly unlikely, but not absolutely impossible.

The similarities are inescapable. If the Nevis version didn't come from the image on the left, the only other logical assumptions I can think of would be that 1) both of them came from some other previous image, or 2) the Nevis version came from some intermediate version of the one on the left, made by someone else, and Nevis never knew anything about the one on the left. If neither of those hypothetical images can be found to have existed, the evidence indicates that the one on the right must have come from the one on the left.

I already said earlier that the OP should consult a copyright lawyer to explore the options of actually doing anything about this.

What could any lawyer tell you about what it's worth to pursue?

Money? I doubt there is much to gain.

Publicity? I think what's he has gotten on this forum is about all there is to get.

Revenge? That's a personal choice, not a lawyer decision.

What else?

It's not up to me to consider or answer those questions. It's up to the image owner, and whatever he might decide is okay with me.

 

[C Sean]

Depictions of the bird, the St. Lucia parrot, appear on many stamps, unsurprisingly mostly from St. Lucia, so you'd have to "prove" that the Nevis image couldnt have come from anywhere else

I don't think there's any doubt about the relationship of the two images. And since the one on the left was published on the Internet three years before the stamp was released, there can't be much doubt about which existed first.

I want to correct my earlier statement.

I originally believed there was a strong possibility the artist based his rendition on the OP photo. However, looking at the images side by side, it does look like the photo was scanned by software and digitally manipulated.

Yes there are three major differences, one being the eye, part of the beak is missing and the bird is missing a toe on his left foot. That said it looked like a photo been digitally manipulated rather than an artist started from scratch.

Again I'll bring up Derivative works and if OP image was digitally manipulated to create the stamp, the OP will have a stronger case.

Legalzoom what's is Derivative Works

US Copyright Gov



--

Sean Miller’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

 

[Phil A Martin]

Depictions of the bird, the St. Lucia parrot, appear on many stamps, unsurprisingly mostly from St. Lucia, so you'd have to "prove" that the Nevis image couldnt have come from anywhere else

I don't think there's any doubt about the relationship of the two images. And since the one on the left was published on the Internet two years before the stamp was released, there can't be much doubt about which existed first.

The question is what is it worth to pursue for an obscure eight year old stamp from an even more obscure country?

True.

However right the OP might be, in reality the possibility to get any kind of significant compensation from the postal system of a small island is most probably minimal. It might end like when people sue their neighbor. They are finally proven right, fine, but have to pay their own juridical costs of possibly tens of thousands.

A lot of small countries in the world have earlier got a living by selling stamps to collectors abroad. But this kind of business is probably dwindling because collecting stamps doesn't seem to be popular anymore?

BTW is this also a "one-post" new member? I have seen quite many "one-posters" during the years and I have been wondering why anybody first makes the trouble to be a DPR member but then just stops there?

Jahn

They want the adoration!!

Hmm, might very well be.

Yes and comments like yours are hardly welcoming.

 

[FrancoD]

A photographer points out how his photo was stolen so it comes to a PHOTO forum to then be told he is after adoration ...

(mind you he meant adulation )

 

[LeicaEye]

A photographer points out how his photo was stolen so it comes to a PHOTO forum to then be told he is after adoration ...

(mind you he meant adulation )

Point Taken... L