Girl in red hat 'kidnapped' by Alaska marketing company

Longtime readers of this site will remember this 2009 photo of "The girl in the red hat," a 1920s child mannequin found at Porte de Clignacourt, Paris. I purchased the mannequin and brought it home to our Paris apartment. So imagine my dismay upon discovering that "Lucy" had been kidnapped!

Yes, it's true! A staffer at Northwest Strategies - a "marketing, public relations and advertising agency" based in Anchorage, Alaska - absconded with my copyrighted and watermarked photo of Lucy. The staff member deliberately stripped the watermark and altered the photo. As if that weren't bad enough, the altered photo then was posted on Northwest Strategies' commercial website. And the company used my copyrighted photo to market their services!

Poor Lucy in an altered state on a commercial site. Click photo to view detail.

 

In compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, on September 18th, 2013 I filed a Cease and Desist order with the company's site and server hosts, after email to Northwest Strategies went unanswered. On September 20th, an executive from the company that hosts the Northwest Strategies website (but is not responsible for its content) advised that he personally removed the photo. Further, he said he asked Northwest Strategies to find a different hosting provider. He wrote, "...I wanted to notify you personally that it (the DMCA notice) had been addressed. Stealing people's stuff isn't cool."

Disappointingly, it seems Northwest Strategies does not share his respect for someone else's original work.

A losing strategy for Northwest Strategies

The thumbnail of my photo finally was removed from the Northwest Strategies website on October 9th, after numerous requests. But Northwest Strategies continues to ignore invoices for unauthorized and unlicensed commercial use of my work. On October 15th, I informed Chris Munroe, the company's vice president of business development, that I would ask my attorney to take legal action against Northwest Strategies for copyright infringement and photo theft.

On October 16th, Munroe emailed: "...I have been authorized to pay $300 for the photo. That is the going rate for photos we purchase. Will you accept that offer?  I can resolve the matter by the end of the week." The fee Munroe proposed was a 70 percent discount from the standard photo license fee I'd requested - NOT a standard compensation fee. But I foolishly agreed to accept the reduced amount, simply to expedite resolution and move forward.

Apparently I was the only one acting in good faith. Over a month later, there is no evidence to suggest Northwest Strategies has made any attempt to make payment. Instead, over a period of weeks, Northwest Strategies has provided one implausible excuse after another about being unable to get Paypal to work, etc.  When I suggested the company wire the funds directly to my bank account, Munroe advised he "would not pay a money-wiring fee." And he seemed unable to grasp why I wouldn't accept a paper check-in-the-mail (several reasons come to mind, but one key factor is that checks don't exist in Dutch banking).

Munroe told me "...you're (sic) communication is becoming somewhat harassing," because I dared question ludicrous claims about why the company has yet to pay compensation. Munroe's accusation is a bit rich - especially considering that Northwest Strategies stole my copyrighted work, then engaged in various tactics to delay or avoid paying compensation.

It appears Northwest Strategies wrongly considers it can violate copyright law with impunity. And the  Northwest Strategies  employee who stole my photo, removed the watermark and altered it hasn't bothered to apologize. Yet the company offers "marketing, public relations and advertising" advice to other businesses??!! Caveat emptor.

Update Dec. 3: Northwest Strategies finally has paid a $300 fee - but not before a last email from Munroe claiming their problems with Paypal were somehow my fault (no one else has a problem sending or receiving funds via my Paypal account) and chastising me for an "aggressive nature."   Never mind that it was Northwest Strategies that stole MY photo - and it took two-and-a-half months and 48 emails - including invoices - to get the company to pay nominal compensation. And still no apology.

Spending so much time and effort trying to get Northwest Strategies to do the right thing was wasted from a financial perspective. But the principle of holding the company accountable for violating my copyright was why I kept fighting.

Comments

[Tara Bradford]

Elizabeth, thanks for your support! I'm afraid you're right - this sort of thing seems to be happening more and more often. Apparently some companies think they can skirt the law without consequences. Unless content creators challenge such copyright infringement, the creative marketplace will be eroded. (What a great experience for your daughter to work at the Tate)!

[Tara Bradford]

You're right, Tim. Failing to address a copyright violation doesn't make it go away. The law is clear.

[Tim Hurst]

Business101: A business isn't doing well, if it resorts to stealing a photo, design or idea, then tries to hide from its actions. Really bad business strategy here - not to mention non-compliance with copyright law, which bears serious penalties.

[elizabeth]

This is so depressing and appalling - and I fear it happens all the time.
I do hope you get your money in the end. This would be excellent-but scarcely begins to address the issue.
My daughter dealt with rights and permissions for some time for The Tate gallery in London and knows the law pretty well. Many companies are willing to pay a reasonable fee.
Northwest Strategies are obviously crooks.
So sorry.

[Tara Bradford]

Hi Marilyn - thanks so much for your support. Sadly, some businesses behave in a very unethical manner and try to take advantage, if they see an opportunity to grab what they want. Rather than spend their efforts in creating something unique, they take someone else's original work. Such guerilla tactics won't help their business - or their reputation!

[Tara Bradford]

Hi Helen - I hadn't heard the story about Cody Foster; sadly, it seems too many people these days are determined to take advantage of other people's original work. And these same people think they can do whatever they want, without consequences! A very unethical way to conduct business... Thanks for your support.

[Helen]

Do you know about this? Cody Foster bought or copied all of these items off the internet and had made millions of dollars over the years. Anthropologie, Terrain, Crate and Barrel & Barrel and many other companies have withdrawn the products. None of these artists were ever credited or paid. Sad to say, I bought some of these items from Cody Foster over the past ten years. He presented himself as designer. It has become a huge story.

Intellectual property theft knows no boundaries...this story is so horrible to all the artisans involved. "IP is not free."

https://www.flickr.com/photos/105498342@N02/

So sorry you have had so many thefts...I honestly feel like anything and everything is copied these days.

[Marilyn]

I am so sorry this is still happening to you. How disgusting and frustrating. Thanks for standing up to them and fighting for your rights. I, like several other, was hoping things had gotten better.

[Tara Bradford]

Mike I agree with you about the watermark. In 2013 I started putting big watermarks over most images, due to widespread copyright infringement. And so far I haven't "won" anything with this particular infringing company - just a litany of excuses NOT to pay compensation.

[Mike Drips]

I'm glad you won, but I did a Google image search on your photo above and there are many copies of it (granted all on your site) where the only watermark is across the bottom. That allows for an easy trim and there is not a © symbol in your watermark.

I'm on your side, just pointing this out, as floating metatags don't seem to carry the same impact as a strong watermark.

[Tara Bradford]

Thanks, Mike! Agreed on all points.

[Mike King]

Seems like every creative type I know needs a copyright lawyer on speed dial these days! That company needs to step up, admit it was wrong and pay compensation.

[Tara Bradford]

Hi JessieL - Can't say I disagree with you! Thanks for your comment.

[Tara Bradford]

Thanks, Jeanie. What a crazy world in which we have to fight rogue companies for rights to work that we create!

[Tara Bradford]

Joel, thank you. Seems like a company engaged in the business of advertising, public relations and marketing should grasp the basics of copyright law, right??!!

[JesseL]

What is wrong with people??!! No it's not ok to use someone's work without permission! Stripping the watermark is deliberate and blatant copyright violation; some thought went into that action! So no way he or she can claim not to know it was wrong. Disgusting.

[jeanie]

I know I am naive, but I was hoping that this nightmare had ended for you. Good for you, Tara, fighting for your rights, your compensation and for the issue itself. I know this must take an inordinate amount of time, not to mention the angst, only to be confronted by arguments and then being ignored and denied. Well, all I can say is "you go, girl!" -- you are the champion for all of us.

[Joel Johnson]

So much for that company's biz strategy! Not a good move. Copyright is governed by law, whether some lazy corporate suits like it or not.

[Tara Bradford]

Nancy, thank you so much for your very supportive comments. It seems there are millions of creatives facing similar challenges, with copyrights infringed in case after case after case. Companies like the one in question are undermining the photography market. Of course Northwest Strategies would not work for free - but apparently considers it's fine to use someone else's creation without permission or payment. You are of course correct about penalties for willful copyright infringement in the US; the penalties are similar in Europe. Yet companies still try to get away with stealing other people's work! Guess such bad behaviour will help keep copyright lawyers in business, if not content creators!

[Tara Bradford]

Ann, thank you. Unethical and appalling is right!

[Tara Bradford]

Lars, thank you. It's incredible how many companies seem to think anything they find on the Internet is free for the taking. Most people wouldn't go into a gallery or store and take a photograph without paying for it. Yet many of these people don't give a second thought about stealing the same photograph when it appears online. It's as though we photographers need a full-time staff just to track theft - as in this instance! Infuriating!

[Tara Bradford]

Good idea, Carina! Thank you!

[Tara Bradford]

Mary, thank you! It seems that dealing with copyright infringement cases is becoming a second (unpaid) job, unfortunately. I really appreciate your continued support.

[Lars Anders Malling]

Apparently this company missed the memo that copyright infringement is a crime! Removing the foto doesn't stop their liability for image theft. And stripping the watermark and adding to the foto is another offense. Very suspect conduct from a business, which should know better. Sorry you are having to deal with such issues.

[Ann Jensen]

Good for you for standing up to these crooks! It is shocking that so many companies seem to think such unethical actions are acceptable. This incident speaks volumes about the company and how its staff conducts business. Appalling.

[Carina]

Tara,

Have Image Rights take it up for you. Apart from the use of the image without permission, the removal of the watermark constitutes a greater problem and is akin to stripping the meta data of the image, thus subject to copyright violation fines up to $20,000 in the United States.

[NancyB]

I am thoroughly appalled and disgusted that you have found yet another person on the internet that has claimed your material as her own and boldly ignoring giving proper credit. Have any of these low life's at least had the decency to offer sincere apologies for attributing your copyrighted material as their own? I do wonder if any of them are cognizant that Copyright Infringement is a serious crime and that if you were to sue, it's highly probable that each of them would be likely to be found liable of willful copyright infringement. When I try to imagine the amount of time involved in confronting each of these fraudulent interlopers I get more angry but I also could not be happier that you intend to stick up for your rights. Everyone knows that to use someone's work you commonly pay to sample or use it and there is no difference when ‘sampling’ or using an artist’s visuals.

I'm just so proud of you for pursuing each and everyone of them - it's not like you could possibly do otherwise. I feel like you have been fighting for not only yourself but for everyone who creates - every author, screenwriter, songwriter, composer, sculptor, artist, illustrator, fashion designer, furniture designer, auto designer, poet, architect, photographer, jewelry designer, shoe designer, or anyone who has developed something from their own creation, has a right to defend what is rightfully theirs. It is a very powerful and moving experience to stick up for your rights. Hopefully doing so has empowered you.

Each instance has been willful, wanton and deliberate acts of copyright infringement. In the United States, willful copyright infringement carries a maximum penalty of $150,000 per instance. Copyright infringement is a serious issue.

[Mary H.]

Oh Tara,
I cannot begin to imagine the ire you have experienced dealing with this type of crime. My teeth are grinding and my jaws clenched as I read this account of your battle for what is rightfully yours. I admire your strength and grace in battle.