We’re sure that Marc Adamus wants to be rid of MAL 2.0, and we’ve got a deal for Marc.
Start enforcing your copyright, and Marc Adamus LIES 2.0 will cease its operations.
Yep, you’ve heard that right. We have many issues with Marc Adamus, but by far the worst is the fact that he’s allowed various THUGS like Ryan Dyar and Miles Morgan to freely copy his images. This encourages these THUGS to go around and steal even more images from other photographers. It’s a snowball effect. There are hundreds of LOSERS on Flickr who spend their time stealing real photographers’ images and giving them away for free, taking credit for the composition, and otherwise interfering with the legitimate businesses run by legitimate photographers.
Marc Adamus LIES 2.0 simply wants what’s best for the photography industry. With that in mind, we’re willing to compromise with Marc Adamus to reach an acceptable deal for all involved. By stopping the theft of his compositions/images, Marc Adamus can undo the damage he’s encouraged. Our proposal is as follows:
Marc Adamus will:
1. Immediately write a copyright statement which is clearly posted on his website. This statement must make it clear that infringement of his copyright is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Any infringement will result in aggressive legal action.
2. Find every loser & pathetic piece of shit who has copied his images and demand that the images be removed from the web and destroyed. This is actually a pretty straightforward procedure, and entirely within his rights. We will allow 90 days for this to be resolved to 90% or better removal of infringing material.
3. Marc Adamus cannot tolerate any infringement of his copyright, especially with statements such as “my style is immediately recognizable” available on his site for public consumption. There can be no exceptions. Pieces of crap like Floris van Breugel or Miles Morgan can’t receive exceptions.
4. These conditions are not negotiable. These are things which any serious photographer should be doing in the first place. By agreeing to enforce his copyright, Marc Adamus can show the photography industry that he’s serious about ethical operation and is committed to copyright protection and the right of photographers to protect their work from theft.
In return, Marc Adamus LIES 2.0 will:
1. Immediately suspend operation of Marc Adamus LIES 2.0 while the 90 day period is running. A statement to the effect that an agreement is pending between MAL 2.0 and Marc Adamus will be posted as the last post on MAL 2.0 blog and on the top of the MAL 2.0 website.
2. Once the 90 day period is over and infringing material removal has been completed to our satisfaction, the website will be shut down and removed from the Internet, and the blog will be deleted. There will be no further mention of Marc Adamus in any of our material.
3. Loserphotographers.com and associated material will continue to be maintained, with no mentions made of Marc Adamus. There are many fraudulent, stupid, and unethical THUGS out there who must continue to be exposed. In addition, every effort will be made to remove references to Marc Adamus in any past material posted on Loserphotographers.com and Blog.
We are sure that anyone will agree that these terms are perfectly reasonable, and Marc Adamus can only stand to gain by agreeing to them. Considering that Marc Adamus may be out in the field, we will allow 7 days for a response to our proposal. At the end of the 7 day period without a response, the deal will be considered void. MAL 2.0 strongly urges Marc Adamus to carefully consider this deal in relation to how he wants to be seen in the future: an ethical operator who works by the standards of legitimate photographers, or a boastful egomaniac who enables and encourages copyright theft and the destruction of the photography industry by THUGS & LOSERS like Miles Morgan and Ryan Dyar.
The problem with your request is that it's not copyright infringement to take a photo of the same location. This is known as "Public Domain".
ReplyDeleteIf it was possible to do what you're asking, then don't you think the people behind Ansel Adams would be suing every photographer and tourist who took a photo of Yosemite?
Copyright on an image gives you the "right" to "copy" your image. That's it.
Now, if you're claiming that these other photographers are copying Marc's images pixel for pixel, not only in alignment but in color, then yes, that's copyright because at that point there is no proof the image is truly different, thus belonging to another creator. But, given that Marc Adamus photoshops his images so badly, I don't know how anyone could end up with a pixel for pixel copy.
As a long time photographer, I would have done this long ago as many of my original compositions have since been copied and exploited. Originality is nearly impossible anymore unless you can find locations that are rare and not publicly known. In the age of the Internet, this seems nearly impossible.
Look, I share your frustration. I really do. But what you're asking won't stand up in the eyes of the law.
You have to realize that it IS NOT POSSIBLE to copyright nature. Therefore, it's not possible to enforce a copyright of a photo of it. This is just pure idiotic BS. All established nature photographers in history have been copied and there isn't one single instance of anyone taking legal action over it. Plus, Marc has many of the least copied images out there! It has nothing to do with workshops or anything else. It's just simply impossible! Any lawyer could tell you that.
ReplyDeleteProve it then. Find one example ever in history of a photographer protecting a copyright of a natural scene they have photographed against someone shooting the same scene. You can't. It was explained to you in black and white, clear as day right here on this thead and you choose to ignore it. You absolutely can not copyright a nature photograph and legally pursue anyone taking the same shot. If you had a shred of intelligence you'd consult an attorney for verification of this but you live in your own delusional world where your beliefs are laws. To enforce a copyright of a nature photograph one would have to prove the supposed copy was an EXACT replica in composition and color, meaning it would almost certainly have to have been taken at the same time and processed identically. You can't find any instance of this ever happening and a judge would laugh at you if you ever brought such a grievance to a court.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, how cruel and callous of you to try to take away the joy other people might find in shooting the same things as their idols. A world where people couldn't shoot something that has been shot before because of copyrights is not one I would ever want to live in and I'm sure I speak for most photographers in that regard. Thankfully, people in our court system aren't smoking the kind of stuff you are when you pollute the internet further with this hate-speech.
Happens all the time. You are just too dense to admit it. Here's one where someone was sued for taking a picture of a statue.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.floridapatentlawyerblog.com/2010/02/photographer-sued-over-photo-o.html
Here's a very thorough primer on copyright and photography:
http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html
You are simply too dense to understand that Marc's (and everyone else's) images are unique expressions of an idea and cannot be copied. If you want a photo of some waterfall, take your own fucking photo and don't copy someone else. And the copy doesn't have to be pixel for pixel to infringe. Far from it.
But then again, I am talking to a wall here. You don't want the truth. You just want whatever justification it takes to continue your bullshit copying and patting yourself on the back.
Nope. Still nothing in either place you linked that says anything about someone like Marc being able to enforce a copyright on any of his images. If someone wants to stand where Marc took a picture and take it themselves, there is no law that precludes them from doing so in nature. You are the wall here, and anyone who reads this site knows that. You can't find a nature photographer in history who has ever succeeded legally in stopping anyone from taking a shot where they did, and you know it. Just like everything else here, there isn't one shred of proof. There is a good reason Marc has such a terrific reputation in the photo community and good reason everyone here is laughing at your pathetic ways.
ReplyDeleteWe have said time and time again that you can stand in the same spot and take a picture from that spot. No law against that. What you can't do is try to emulate the feel and style of a Marc photo. The law is clear on this. We will not bother responding to any more of your delusional shit. You probably believe that you could copy a Michael Connelly book, word for word, and not get sued, since, after all, it's all just "words".
ReplyDeleteI dare you to find an image by any photographer that has copied on of Marc's images in terms of composition, lighting and color.
ReplyDeleteHow the hell are two photographers shooting the exact same scene at the same time not going to copy each other pretty closely? What if its a small area like Toroweep point? It's simply impossible not to, and its not like you can ask another guy there to just leave.
ReplyDelete"I dare you to find an image by any photographer that has copied on of Marc's images in terms of composition, lighting and color."
ReplyDeleteYou're either really dishonest, or incredibly stupid. Take your pick.
"How the hell are two photographers shooting the exact same scene at the same time not going to copy each other pretty closely?"
ReplyDeleteThese idiots go out of their way to copy someone else exactly, including focal length, post processing, and more. That's copyright infringement. If they have nothing to add, they shouldn't copy other photographers.
Of all the dumb things you've said this copyright infringement thing is probably the most laughable (well, this or the sex with Bryan swan and Trevor Anderson thing). I'm a full-time working photographer of over 10 years with plenty of experience in copyright violations and like everyone else here, I can tell you that you are simply dead wrong. There is almost no such claim that would ever stand in court against a nature photographer. All these idiots copying Mark may make you mad, but try explaining to a judge that any of this is a direct violation of copyright and you wont get anywhere. While the exact legal definition of copyright violation pertaining to nature photography is a little unclear, I have never seen this enforced in any capacity by anyone and never will.
ReplyDeleteI noticed you still didn't give any examples though. Also, if you want further proof you are incorrect on this you could always just ask a copyright lawyer. I have myself spoken with one and they'd be just fine with telling you that mark would have no case here unless there are much, much more exact copies of his work than anything I've seen.
Just look back to the film days of nature photography for your answer. If two photographers arrived at the same scene with the same film and the same exposure and there was only one obvious composition, was that a copyright violation? NO! Of course not. And if they arrived on different days, its even more impossible that it would have been one. Digital makes it even less likely, and so on. You are simply not thinking correctly....but anyone reading this site already knows that.