This is the first post in a 3 part series about how an Austin, TX based business, Katie Maennle Designs, stole two of my photographs and got away with it (for now). 

[Update: Due to recent developments with the case, parts 2 and 3 are delayed for the foreseeable future. Sorry to leave you hanging!]

As an artist and photographer I like to display my work and have it be seen by people all over the world. One of the mediums in which I display my art is the internet. I upload hundreds of photos each year to photo sharing sites such as Flickr. Being that the internet is such a diverse and “free” medium it is important to protect the images I upload, which is why I register all of my photographs with the US Copyright Office. I also routinely search the internet for my photos to ensure they are not being misused.  By misuse, I mean used by a corporate or commercial entity. If you are an individual and wish to use my photographs for your personal use, please go right ahead, I have absolutely no problems with that. In fact, I license all my photographs with a Creative Commons NonCommercial License, which states to use my photographs for personal use all you have to do is attribute that photo to me, and provide a link back to either chrismartino.com or my flickr page.

The blog post

On June 21, 2011 while doing one of my routine searches for my photographs online I came across the blog of an Austin, TX based business, Katie Maennle Designs.  In the blog Ms. Maennle used two photographs I took while vacationing in Charleston, SC.  The blog post clearly stated my photographs inspired two of her products, “Below, some of what’s inspired a few of our favorite pieces”.  Under each of my photographs is a product with a similar color palate which Ms. Maennle intended to sell elsewhere on her website.  Ms. Maennle did not get prior permission to use these photographs on her company’s website or blog.

Shortly after noticing the infringement I sent Ms. Maennle an email containing what I call a “notice of copyright infringement”, other photographers or copyright attorneys may call it a “demand letter”, but it’s simply a letter stating: their use of the image(s) is considered copyright infringement, they must discontinue using the image(s), a bit of info about copyright infringement and the penalties for committing such a crime, and an offer to settle this matter out of court.  In this letter I offered to settle with Ms. Maennle for $500 or $250 for each image she had used unlawfully.

The next day Ms. Maennle responded stating that she didn’t intend for the images to be viewed as her images, and that she obtained them from other blogs. She then offered to either remove the images, or to offer credit. Nowhere in her response did she offer to settle the disagreement monetarily. Soon after she sent her first email she sent another saying that she had taken the images down. I responded with a request for an address so I could send her an invoice, to which she replied “Because I really do want to be above board in business, I am happy to offer reasonable compensation for the use of 2 photos on a blog that came from another blog that were immediately taken down at the photographer’s request. Unfortunately $250 each isn’t reasonable to me. Please offer a reasonable amount.” To that I responded “I am willing to settle for $250 for both [photographs] if you also agree to write a blog post about copyright infringement and the need for bloggers and companies to respect the rights of photographers.” From there she states that she isn’t sure that her use of the images violated the noncommercial aspect of the creative commons license, and that she had asked her attorney to look over everything and advise her. I responded saying that was a wise move and I’d be more than happy to speak with her attorney.

After our initial email exchange she was headed off to Rwanda for business, and I communicated to her that I would touch base when she returned. A week after she returned to the US I reached out to her to see if she had discussed the matter with her attorney and to see what she had been advised. In response, she said her attorney would be in touch with me shortly. At that time I had gone out of town for a few days to visit family, and upon my return home I had a (not so) nice letter from her attorney.  In part, Ms. Maennle’s attorney states (emphasis his):

… I am much more troubled with the way you pursued collection of money for the so-called use of your photography. Blackmail, coercion, extortion, and interference with commerce by threats are very slippery slopes and should be avoided. Stating criminal penalties for crimes you believe to have been conducted and any and all other civil results for certain actions are one thing, but to include those in conjunction with an offer to “settle” is another issue. Under US Code Title 18 §1951: “(a)Whoever in any way…affects commerce…by robbery or extortion…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (b) As used in this section– (2) the term “extortion means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by…fear, or under color of official right.”

Basically, he was accusing me of extortion, and as a result he advised his client not to settle with me.

At this point I knew I would have to obtain an attorney of my own.

This concludes part 1 of the series.  Stay tuned for part 2 where I obtain my own attorney, and re-establish communication with Ms. Maennle.