"They're not actually claiming anything."
A resonable person might infer that they would include shots of their own product in use on their site rather than a competitors.
This is therefore misrepresentation and, as such, is misleading and therefore, in all likliehood illegal.
We are not privy to the email from Trout identifying and linking to these shots, so it might be a little presumptuous at this juncture to pre-suppose anything.
I'm not saying it's correct, but looking at the web site, at no point are they specifying that their lights are featured in the "night shots" drop down menu, moreover, their retort might well tell us that these are rider's pictures kindly donated and sent into them, illustrating what they to believe to be their lights in action and that they are, to the best of their knowledge, not attempting to misrepresent their products in the slightest.
This is what I would like to believe to be the case, there are, after all, going to be two sides of this coin, and I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, all things considered.
It does suck picture nicking. A light maker nicking another light makers image...tut.
I had one of mine nicked by rail news.
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2008/11/04-network-rail-bridging.html
[img] 
[/img]
Bristol Evening Post owes me £100 and still aint got it.
Any suggestions of a good letter proforma and invoice to send them... Grrr. Also, what would be a reasonable sum ?
their retort might well tell us that these are rider's pictures kindly donated and sent into them, illustrating what they to believe to be their lights in action and that they are, to the best of their knowledge, not attempting to misrepresent their products in the slightest.
It might.
[img] 
[/img]
Red:
What makes you think the light manufacturer stole the image?
The information in this post tells us quite the opposite.
Your post is a little confusing. Have or have you not you invoiced the paper for £100? You seem to then to want an invoice form, which is not necessary as you can make out an invoice on pretty much anything, then you ask how much the invoice should be for.
Make your mind up! Why do they owe you £100? Where did they get the image? What size did they use it? Are you the author? You'll need to provide a concise history of the image for anyone to make an informed judgment.
Thread title: "Lumilite have nicked my photo"
The Evening Post used two images and never paid me. The rate for BEP if they use a submitted image is £50.
The bridge picture was taken by me and I can prove it if I wish, sadly Railnews just ignore me :-(.
I was just looking for some more formal words to send them. But conversely I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Them Lumilite fellas are cheeky buggers though eh.
Lumilite have also been called out for spamming on Bikeradar, starting threads along the lines of "hey guys, check out this interesting light company". Which kind of backfired after people pointed out that their product is available much cheaper direct from the manufacturer. 🙂
As a company that's apparently too cheap to pay for proper advertising, too stupid to ask for permission before ripping off someone's photos, and too dishonest to give an accurate representation of their product, I wouldn't buy from them.
[url= http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12668892&highlight=bike+lights ]Evidence of said twonkery[/url]
All you need to do is submit the invoice.
This should state the terms of payment, typically within 28 days.
It needs your name and address and a contact email / telephone number and an invoice number, say 1572 for argument sake. If you add your bank details they may well settle it that way.
If you are VAT registered you will need to add some extra details, but I'll assume you're not for the moment.
A short covering letter telling them what the images were and what pages they were used on and on what date the paper ran them.
Then you follow this up with a call to their accounts department after a month.
You don't mention how they got hold of the images.
Thanks
Ti29er and Mr Agreeable
I'll dig out the original images again.
Lumilite have also been called out for spamming on Bikeradar, starting threads along the lines of "hey guys, check out this interesting light company".
Are Lumilite EU based? if so, then AFAIK, they're probably breaking EU/UK trading laws. They can advertise, but they can't pretend to be a satisfied customer recommending a product on a forum. I'd shop them to trading standards for that as well as misleading claims.
As for photo theft... any photo sharing site can say what they like, but if you took the photo, you retain copyright, even if it it is in the public domain. Most of my photos that have been used have been hotlinked directly to commercial travel agencies. So I just swapped the JPGs out for those of scantily clad ladies that I found somewhere.
"I just swapped the JPGs out"
that's cruel 🙂
Can I suggest you add text to all meta data attached to each and every image you take?
This can be done in camera and if not, then even more accurately in post production software.
This would then tell anyone who might consider using an image of yours that they [i]must at all times [/i]defer back to you, the originator before using the image in any commercial ventures. Word it how you will, giving some indication of its possible useage, with and / or without likely fees.
Update .
I pointed out to Lumilite that the pic was one of mine and in no way looked like a P7 beam as it was a 2200 lumen Liberator beam shot .
I also offered them useage of the correct beam shot from a magicshine as long as I got credit for the picture .
They have replied to say they apologise and will remove the offending pic asap within 24 hours
No mention if they want to use the excelent beam shot I supplied them .
My Update:
I'll be sending this crowd an invoice.
Nicked Pic:
[img] [/img]
My Pic:
[url= http://static.zooomr.com/images/8895289_60eec64262_o.jp g" target="_blank">
red,
ygm
redthunder
While it does look like the pictures were taken from about the same place at about the same time, I can't help noticing the one you claim to be stolen is a lot smaller.
You didn't happen to notice if there was a chap next to you with a much smaller camera, did you?
Higgo - Memberredthunder
While it does look like the pictures were taken from about the same place at about the same time, I can't help noticing the one you claim to be stolen is a lot smaller.
You didn't happen to notice if there was a chap next to you with a much smaller camera, did you?
MAS*
*Midly Amused Smirk, wasn;t quite enough to actually make me laugh
They have replied to say they apologise and will remove the offending pic asap within 24 hours
And remove it they did.
completely unrelated to trout BUT based on the comments of 3 folk ive ridden with this week AND the last post on that bikeradar thread it seems that people are confused between lumilite and lumicycle....
which may not be entirely unintentional on the 'upstarts' part?
oh dont get me wrongi understand that . i just think its rather underhand on there part - ok its business and all that i just think they are selling a product thats nothing remotely like lumicycles ie lumicycles do good lights and these are shit (based on my sample group of 4 mates having them an all have failed - with different modes of failure too and varying between first ride and 2 weeks old) but cashing in on lumicycles reputation through the confusion !
when i look at there website im drawn to the word "lumi" and lights is nice and small - would be easy to miss- and given people refer to lumicycles as "lumis" its easy to see where the confusion comes.
frankly my take on it is they are a shower of unscrupulous con men and id rather deal direct with DX than give them my dosh ! (cumulativly not just based on my point above - stealing trouts photo , portraying it as their light , poor customer service and aftercare and commuication breakdown ! )
