Getting sued for blogging!

3 Oct

UPDATE: In only a few hours tonight I have discovered over 20 female bloggers who have all been targetted in the same way by this man. Many of their experiences are online and linked to from the comment section. With group knowledge I discover this guy is a lot worse than I had had ever imagined – it really upsets me to see how his copyright trolling has effected many others to the extent some closed their site and never blogged again!  Collectively we’re launching a site tomorrow to help others online he may target / be in contact with by sharing experiences and offering advice. Strength in numbers. The site will also offer best practise advise for blogging / credits etc… 

I have been writing this blog for four years now, and whilst I am not always perfect in my writing and accreditation (& especially my spelling) I try my best. Therefore I was shocked (& yes upset) to recive a letter from German photographer Stefan Richter today, informing me a blog post I wrote on Walter Potter a few years ago now is costing me £1500, and I have 2 weeks to pay or I have to go to court and pay his legal costs. A bit heavy handed to say the least considering I make no money from this blog and do it simply for a love of creativity.

To make it worse this is from a photographer NOT the artist whose work I featured – yes someone who commercially benefits from taking pictures of another (sadly deceased) artists work such as Walter Potter. I totally respect the work of photographers, and their copyright, but in this case feel that fact makes him more of a dick and am FURIOUS. It also means Walter Potter’s estate will also miss out all online traction for his work if this is happening to all bloggers.

Never one to take things lying down (leave it) I have scanned in the various correspondence I got through the post today below for everyone to review; I think this ridiculous man’s over aggressive behaviour could serve a purpose by stimulating an interesting debate on this topic so let’s go for it eh?! As he clearly feels in the right I am sure he will make no objection to me posting them. I might hasten to add when I found these images on another site (I wont grass them up) where there was no photographer reference. Needless to say I don’t feel his behaviour is right – a short email (my details are on the blog for this exact reason) would have been suffice.

Hit the comments PLEASE people (feel free to share / RT)!!! I am really interested to see what everyone feels this means for the future of blogging… Luckily I am old enough & ugly enough to let it wash over me but I can imagine this would really upset some people and they would become too scared to blog which can not be allowed to happen😦

That said, only I could get sued over some taxidermy kittens dressed up to go to a wedding.

The postcards he sent - don't blog them he'll charge you!!!

PS: I also love the idea of a Twitter follower (thanks Iain) to use Kickstarter to raise money for a creative “countersuit for a dick” project?

82 Responses to “Getting sued for blogging!”

  1. roswensian October 3, 2011 at 5:54 pm #

    I think he’s an idiot for every reason you have stated – if you were selling the images, making profit then maybe he’d have a case but you weren’t, so he doesnt – You were doing him a favour by promoting/talking about his photo.

  2. Sarah Harradine (@fashiondotty) October 3, 2011 at 6:03 pm #

    Perhaps contact a solicitor to see if they can give you some free advice. I’m pretty sure 99% of bloggers would have been sued by now if this sort of thing had any legal basis (especially if you are making no money off your blog at all). Best thing to do is to remain calm, try to resist being slanderous, and remain civil.

  3. Caroline October 3, 2011 at 6:07 pm #

    I personally think he’s just an opportunistic little sh!t and is trying his luck, in the hope that you’ll roll over and just pay up. I can’t believe there are ‘artists’ out there who would be so unashamedly money grabbing.

  4. honki October 3, 2011 at 6:16 pm #

    i am so ashamed of being german right now. i cant believe that there are still such stupid persons out there who dont know anything about the power of the web. it seems as if mr. richter doesn’t even have an own website for his pictures so a recherce on this would have been very difficult for you . Sadly in Germany we don’t use any Fair Use Laws like the U.S. so he is probably right, but still a dick.

    I hope you start this Kickstarter Project and defend against him!

  5. Jo (@j0annepsi) October 3, 2011 at 6:16 pm #

    Isn’t it normal in this sort of situation for the owner of the copyright to politely ask you to remove the material in question *before* they threaten litigation?

  6. Toby October 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm #

    Twat. I think you’re ace. x

  7. louise @Thirtyfive Flowers October 3, 2011 at 6:20 pm #

    He seems far more concerned with the £s than preserving his artistic integrity, I’m guessing this is some kind of sideline to supplement his income.
    Really hope you can find a solution that won’t leave you out of pocket, but you definitely need some legal advice!

  8. beckythump October 3, 2011 at 6:21 pm #

    Surely he could simply ask you to take it down rather than be horrible about it. It’s ridiculous seeing as the original image isn’t even his.

  9. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    I know!!! I think he tries this scam a lot…. and I think it is a scam not a valid claim as so ridiculous!!!

  10. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    yea it is – he’s not normal!

  11. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 6:31 pm #

    thanks sweetie x

  12. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 6:32 pm #

    thanks Toby the feeling in mutual – love your stuff too! x

  13. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 6:32 pm #

    oh you are so sweet!

  14. Anonymous October 3, 2011 at 6:59 pm #

    This guy is always trying to sue people for using the Walter Potter pics. He’s not the only one who’s taken pictures of them! I have myself and they look the same! have you spoken to Suzanne from She recently had a serious run-in with this guy. He’s a nasty piece of work…

  15. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 7:00 pm #

    thanks no I will do – he does seem like a bully and I can tell you now he is not getting a penny from me

  16. Heather October 3, 2011 at 7:15 pm #

    Well, bloggers using other people’s images is kind of a grey area… There are many, many examples of artists and designers who’s images and concepts and designs are used but, without consent, it is against the law to do so. That is a fact. With that said, it does seem that this guy is kinda relishing in the fact that ‘he found another one!’ and so, it does seem rather that he is more concerned with money than he is about protecting his work. It is a very threatening and boastful letter, where a simple request to remove the image would have been a good start. I have to say, you would be well advised to lower your tone. By tweeting about this in the way that you are, you are not doing yourself any favours. It would be wise to treat his letter with a calm, measured response – once you’ve got your facts straight. Swearing about him and raging away sort of gives him credance because it’s unprofessional and undermines the validity of your retort. Keep your cool and teach this bully a lesson.

  17. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 7:17 pm #

    Thanks everyone – this guy is clearly a nasty piece of work and I am not going to let him carry on bullying and threatening bloggers to try and make a living for himself. My address he sent to the document to is a really old one and he can use what he wants as it will all only expose him more. In the space of an hour I have already found TEN other people this guy has tried it on with….

  18. bigcrustyape October 3, 2011 at 7:19 pm #

    What a knob! As a photographer I’m ashamed at this kind of attitude towards bloggers. If you were a commercial company and had stolen an image for the promotion of your company, that would be a very different thing. Yep… I’d send you an invoice too. But as many have mentioned, blogging is a different animal all together and you are doing him a favour by circulating his imagery! His correct response should have been, “hey Miss Cakehead, I see you posted a couple of my images on your blog, I’d really appreciate a credit. Love your blog! You must be an AMAZING person! Keep up the good work. I’m rich and love odd looking cats… Fancy a date?”. But no, this serial blogger invoicer decided to be a knob.

  19. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 7:25 pm #

    OK so more evidence he tires to make a living suing bloggers – this girl got exactly the same letter. And it seems he likes to pick on girls!

  20. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 7:27 pm #

    And another person – needless to say we will all be in contact with each other!

  21. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 7:30 pm #

    OK WOW this is getting big – loads more people he has threatened here too:

  22. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 7:36 pm #

    Thanks Heather – I am. Worryingly my research reveals he is an old hat at this so I just hope no one paid up. it appears to be his style to go for ‘easy targets’ such as female bloggers. I wont stand for any hint of bulling *stomps feet*

  23. Reevo October 3, 2011 at 7:41 pm #

    What a piece of work!

    Hope it’s not stressing you out too much.

  24. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 7:48 pm #

    Thanks – no not really just as the plot deepens I wonder how long he has made a living by suing people for using his photographs of a dead artists work. Not even his work!!!!

  25. Heather October 3, 2011 at 7:55 pm #

    Hmmm, I’ve just looked through the other links and read the comments and it’s disturbing to know that he’s targeting mostly women. I don’t know, but surely with this revelation, you have a collective power? Wouldn’t this fall under some kind of international Harrassment Law? Creepy fucker. Jesus, get help – use twitter! Start a campaign. Seriously. Name and shame him.

  26. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 8:00 pm #

    Yes we now have collective power, are talking to each other and will find someone to legally support the group as a whole tomorrow.

  27. Jay October 3, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    Yeah, I agree with most these comments, it seems like a scam. And why not just ask you to remove them? Good luck.

  28. Sister Wolf October 3, 2011 at 8:19 pm #

    and don’t forget my friend’s dramatic reading of one of Richter’s threats. please enjoy the reading by lucasrevolution!

    p.s. emailing you right now, as well.

  29. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 8:42 pm #

    I tell a lie he doesn’t just make money from suing / scaring female bloggers his main line of work is in erm ‘specialty photography’ – this link is NSFW but not hardcore filth either…

  30. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 8:56 pm #

    Here is an old video of someone reading out one of this pathetic threat letters:

  31. morgaine October 3, 2011 at 8:57 pm #

    so sorry to hear this…i mean a blog is a blog…it’s kind of notes which people read and we all do our best to not steal and take credit for work which isn’t ours but we are not perfect. Secondly, no-one ever thought YOU personally made and photographed those kittens…crikey. Things are getting to be all very serious even in the world of stuffed cats and fake weddings. Shame.

  32. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    he didn’t even make then – he photographed another artists work! x

  33. Anonymous October 3, 2011 at 8:59 pm #

    He’s just trying to see if you’ll pay. What a knob. Until his attorney contacts you, I’d ignore it. Even then, I’d ignore it. It’s REALLY expensive to sue someone and go into litigation. Just delete your post and don’t respond him. It’s a hollow threat.

  34. GrungeGeek October 3, 2011 at 9:02 pm #

    Unless this letter came from a lawyer, which it clearly didn’t, and there is a great big “cease and desist” in there, there are no legal ramifications for not paying, at least not in the US.

  35. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

    I am not paying a penny to him BUT I am working with a group of other female bloggers I discovered / met tonight who have all been targeted in this aggressive manner by a copyright troll to stop this frankly threatening behaviour

  36. Flocking101 October 3, 2011 at 9:31 pm #

    Hi, I’m the author of the flocking101 blog post referenced above. What I find fascinating is that the only evidence he produces that he’s the copyright holder is that he’s selling postcards on a website run by a friend of his (as he says in the above video). Ask for anything more concrete and all you get is more abuse. How odd…

  37. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 9:37 pm #

    Even more cross now – yet another example of a female (it seems to be only women) blogger he targeted. Sad to see he upset up to the extent she paid £350 which is a lot of money…

  38. Ree October 3, 2011 at 9:38 pm #

    My feedback (having paid him a while ago):
    1. It doesnt matter that he didn’t create the work…photographers rarely ‘create’ the work, they take a picture, they own that image.
    2. German law doesnt require a cease and desist letter.
    3. He is supported by his union – they will pay his fees.
    4. Copyright law doesn’t allow for ‘fairness’…….
    5. A man who was also threatened at the same time as me got expensive legal advice. I talked to him on the phone for about an hour.
    6. He sued the Guardian and won.

    I decided to pay my fine. I learned my expensive lesson.

    Good luck with whatever you decide. xx

  39. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 9:49 pm #

    Well he can kiss my arse – opportunistic bully. He can sue me I don’t care. Have nothing he can take so happy to be used as a test case in the courts. Some amazing kind big gun copyright law experts are offering free advice so it is going to get interesting.

  40. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    yes I got sent those really low quality postcards too!

  41. Cakehead Loves Evil October 3, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    Also see comment from Flocking 101…. x

  42. Bullshit October 3, 2011 at 11:27 pm #

    I’m sorry you felt you had to pay, Ree, and still feel like you have to communiate this position, because you clearly didn’t have to had you analysed the situation.

    1. Actually it does matter. There is still not 100% evidence that he’s actually had permission from Potter’s family to take/publish the pictures. First of all, a clear analysis would have to be made of that.

    2. Where are you based within the European union and how does German law affect you unless it’s EC law? Show me legislation about what you say about cease & desist. Surely, you have researched that and not just taken his word for it?

    3. That is true IF he’s really a Ver.di member.

    4. Of COURSE it does. “Fair use” is not just a made up legal term. Actually.

    5. What happened after said man got advice?

    6. Evidence! (also, it’s a commercial newspaper and the situation is totally different)

  43. mrmiley October 3, 2011 at 11:54 pm #

    Definitely a bully, definitely a t**t…. however, legally right. You did use a copyrighted image without obtaining consent of the copyright holder. Just because it’s the internet, a lot of people think that copyright laws don’t apply… they do. Linking the image from another un-copyrighted sight is the equivalent of receiving stolen goods
    I agree that asking you to remove the offending image, or credit him as the photographer would have been a lot more reasonable, suggesting that he is doing this for the money, not for the principal, but that’s not a crime, copyright theft is! Don’t get me wrong, it wouldn’t cross most peoples minds (yours included) to do it deliberately and most people wouldn’t even consider copyright when doing something like that especially when it is a personal, not a business use.
    I would be inclined to be VERY VERY careful what you say about him on the net, if he is this concerned with making money that he’d go to these lengths. I wouldn’t put it past him to try for Libel too!!!
    I speak as someone who has had work “stolen”, twice very deliberately, three times done without thought (as in your case) I asked the 2 “deliberates” to remove the images (as they were trying to make money from it), when they didn’t I threatened to sue. They removed them pretty damn quick then. With the 3 “unintentionals” I pointed out politely that they were my creations and that they should have asked permission. They were all most appolagetic and asked me if I wanted them removed. I said no, just credit me, which they did.

  44. robyn October 4, 2011 at 12:42 am #

    that’s fucking ridiculous, i’ve been following your blog for awhile now and if anything you’ve made me aware of more artists around the world..

    this guy’s a douche and obviously needs something to do to help him stay afloat in this crumbling economy


  45. Flocking101 October 4, 2011 at 2:16 am #

    @Ree You say that “He sued the Guardian and won” – do you have a link to a story about that, or can you tell us where we can find a copy of the judgement? Google doesn’t seem to bring up any reference to such a case. Also, what evidence did he provide to you that he was the copyright holder, apart from a link to the postcard website that is apparently run by a mate of his? If he took the photos when the Walter Potter museum was up and running, did he have an agreement with them that he could sell the images? If he took the photos after the museum went belly-up, does he have an agreement with whoever now owns the dioramas? I’m just curious. When I asked him for proof of copyright ownership all the talked about was Patrick Cariou, and threw in a few bonus exclamation marks – as is his wont.

  46. Daniel Glover October 4, 2011 at 7:36 am #

    Good luck Em, what a dick

  47. Cakehead Loves Evil October 4, 2011 at 8:01 am #

    thanks love x

  48. Cakehead Loves Evil October 4, 2011 at 8:04 am #

    I’ve spoken to a couple of people on The Guardian. They have no recollection of this but will keep digging. Someone also pointed out his letter still has 31000DM, which was before the Euro replaced the Deutsche Mark and thats quite a while ago…

  49. Purple October 4, 2011 at 8:27 am #

    I am 100% with you.

    Looks like he offered (dictated) Flocking101 a cease notice. Did he offer you the same?

    Referencing/sourcing the images from an internet source you were not privy to the copyright notice that would have been on the back of the postcard.

    He is referencing UK law not German law.

    “If your photographs are being reproduced on the internet without your permission but the person doing the reproducing is not charging for them then it will probably never end up in a court room as any legal advice you solicit will forward a cease and desist order noting the breaking of copyright to the person doing the reproducing. Court action will only be taken if they choose to ignore the cease and desist order.”

    He is a bull presenting cases and precedence that simply does not apply to you.

  50. Purple October 4, 2011 at 8:27 am #

    … by bull I meant bully :o)

  51. Cakehead Loves Evil October 4, 2011 at 8:32 am #

    Thanks Purple – no the only correspondence I got was that which I have scanned in above posted registered mail from Holland. I have the measure of the fact he is a bully but so upset for those who he did scare into paying him money.

  52. sean October 4, 2011 at 9:21 am #

    what really irritates me is all the hobby lawyers in this thread pretending things haven’t changed in copyright law since the internet. they have but in europe there’s just a lack of precedents. even if the guardian has been sued it wouldn’t prove a legal precedent to sue blogs that don’t sell their content. reeree, I’m sorry to say this but since you’re going around the net scaring people and saying “how you have learned a lesson”: the only lesson you should have learned is that next time you get an extortion letter from some random guy DONT pay.

  53. sean October 4, 2011 at 9:41 am #

    okay, ree, i just had a look at your blog and at the postcard site richter is selling pornography and other assorted stuff from: you have clearly not learned your lesson. going back only a few entries there are “vintage” pictures that you probably think are old enough to be public domain, right? well, interestingly enough, it’s people like richter who seem to also hold the copyrights over daguerrotypes (they’re on his postcard site) that he’s pretty much just photographed. so, in theory, the pictures you think are old enough to be public domain might really just be PICTURES of pictures and someone photographed it off a vintage picture. also, how do you know they dont belong to a photo agency and someon just trimmed off the copyrights? i could go on and on and on. so how have you learned anything at all if you are not even providing your sources, vias or courtesy ofs? i am not trying to upset you, i just dislike how you think you learned anything and have to preach and yet you still havent given any evidence or answers to the questions people raised to your statement and your 5 points.

  54. sean October 4, 2011 at 9:50 am #

    oh, and before i leave: if someone really wants to go through the trouble to reverse image search his daguerrotype pictures, maybe the collections they belong to could be found and they could be asked as to whether he every optained the rights to take pictures of them. because if not, hed be committing a crime in selling them. hes done himself a huge favour by uploading them in shit quality but its still a possibility.

  55. sean October 4, 2011 at 9:56 am #

    oh, in this case, it seems theyre actually from is own collection so nevermind: it was worth raising the option, i guess.

  56. ilikedginger (@ilikedginger) October 4, 2011 at 5:23 pm #

    I don’t have anything to say that hasn’t already been said, but best of luck and I’m very interested to see the outcome of this. I truly love your blog and hope this man gets what he -actually- deserves for harassing and maliciously trying to siphon money from bloggers.

  57. Hamlet Hamster October 4, 2011 at 8:57 pm #

    Hi cakehead,

    first, please check out if the so-called «Fair Use Laws like the U.S.» also exists in the UK. If so, it will be quite hard for Stefan Richter to claim a reasonable fee. But: Did you use his photographs under circumstances that could be seen as a «Fair Use»?

    Second: please claim that you used the image as a journalist. The fee list that was attached to the letter you have received deals with the use of images in a commercial context. Your blog is not commercial. Offer this guy 150,- Pounds Sterling in total – as an act of good will.

    Third: Enjoy yourself!

  58. lollipop October 5, 2011 at 5:59 am #

    your blog is one of my favorites, and stealing people’s work and giving credit is obviously not something you do purposefully, and this guy is obviously fishing for money. don’t let yourself worry about it too much, this guy’s obviously a jerk.

    i hope you don’t have to pay him, and that this whole giant scam thing gets uncovered. if you make a group site against him, with all of his threats or what not, i’d definitely reblog/retweet it and such. best of luck!

  59. Cakehead Loves Evil October 5, 2011 at 7:58 am #

    thanks – everyone has been amazing it is really touching x

  60. Marc October 5, 2011 at 8:13 am #

    All my support to you … this is sick !

  61. Kotzendes Einhorn October 5, 2011 at 9:34 am #

    Best Luck from Germany, I am ashamed!

  62. ilikedginger (@ilikedginger) October 7, 2011 at 3:56 pm #

    It would be kind of interesting to see what he’d do if the images started making the rounds on Pinterest and Tumblr. I’d pin and tumbl the crap out of it.

  63. Msfracture October 10, 2011 at 7:23 am #

    He is a theif. Trying to find a loophole in easy money instead of working, shows a serious lacking in/of integrity & brains. Mr Potter would kick him to the curb. Stick to your guns.

  64. Cakehead Loves Evil October 10, 2011 at 7:27 am #

    I am thank you – considering what a bully he is I am surprised I have heard nothing since…

  65. Anonymous October 17, 2011 at 2:42 pm #


    I’m sorry to hear about Stefan Richter earning a hefty sum of money which his talents as a photographer clearly do not warrant. I’ve also been caught out by him. I know of others and his haul on this occasion mounted up to approximately £5000. The Guardian was asked to pay for their usage and did so without being sued.

    He is legally correct but it has to be said that his tactics are, if others I’ve spoken to are to be believed menacing. Indeed, I’m told that the police were informed and believed his tactics were consistent with that of an internet scammer. However the law is strictly speaking on his side. In this country a cease and desist request and any financial recompense if there has been a commercial use of any image is the normal way of dealing with these things but in Germany it’s harsher and penalties can be up to ten times the normal payment for the copyrighted image. The internet has meant that we don’t keep this within national boundaries.

    The best I’ve heard is a german speaking lawyer who challenged the price and reduced it by 80%. The image piggy backs on someone else’s creative worth and is available as a cheap postcard.

    It’s all very sad that this can happen.

  66. Cakehead Loves Evil October 17, 2011 at 2:51 pm #

    Well I am waiting to hear back from the utter scum bag – he hasn’t replied to my email telling him to grow up and go away… Will of course post on here when I do!

  67. Flocking101 October 17, 2011 at 11:18 pm #

    Hi Anonymous,

    It sounds like you have some knowledge of the history of this matter and have unfortunately needed legal advice yourself. Can you tell us what proof Stefan Richter provided of copyright ownership apart from the fact that he is flogging postcards on a website that is apparently run by a friend of his? I’m sorry to harp on about this, but as far as I can tell people just seem to be taking his word for it and coughing up the cash. Ask for something more substantial from the man himself and, as I’ve said upthread, all you get is abuse.

  68. Em October 18, 2011 at 9:03 am #

    I am going to demand solid proof. He can be as abusive as he likes it won’t be worse that my scumbag ex so will be like water off a ducks back…😦 From my experience with my old boss when people are a bit thick / don’t know what they are doing / in the wrong they resort to bullying & shouting. I suspect this photographer is the same.


  69. Anonymous October 20, 2011 at 1:48 pm #

    I think you’re justified in asking for more proof than what is on the reverse of a postcard. I took it at face value which was perhaps a mistake. He does have a record of photographing other people’s artwork so felt that it fitted with this pattern. I think a lawyer would ask for this proof at the outset. His lawyer is acting for him and has dealt with at least one other person’s solicitor. If Richter doesn’t answer your questions then his lawyer, I assume, might. I know of another photographer who is represented by this same lawyer and he is highly regarded.
    As far as I’m aware most people I know have paid in full except two who had legal help. If you strip out the nastiness of all of this unfortunately it just plays out legally: copyright is breached and a payment is made ( Germans do seem stricter on this rather than offering cease and desist), the question is what is an appropriate payment? It seems from what I know of how this has been handled by others that appropriate payment doesn’t have to be what a photographers’ society specifies. It seems it can be negotiated.

    Personally I think a big issue is why there are so many of these images being used on the internet. Don’t artist’s and photographers have more control over the use of their images on blogging sites? Isn’t it possible to report abuse to Google? Don’t we have a responsibility to look after our work? Is there another reason apart from laxity why there are so many of these particular images around?

  70. lissi_sixx December 22, 2011 at 3:08 pm #


  71. Anonymous February 29, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    The main thing the courts should consider is that the very first person to launch a photographers work online is generally that photographer themselves or someone acting on their part with their consent. In this day and age most reputable photographers use a watermark across their image, which is a great way to protect their work and let others know that it is subject to copyright, it might be argued that any photographer who does not take this simple step to initially protect their work could be seen to have ulterior motives in uploading them in the first place, if only the law saw it this way!

    There are unscrupulous people out there who will deliberately leak their photos online for this precise purpose, then sit back for a couple of years and start to reap the benefits, its a despicable business but not against the law, it is a legal form of a scam.

    As the internet world changes constantly, the laws need to reflect the changes, protecting both professional photographers AND the general public’s use of online images, if a photographer has to make a compromise by adding a watermark to their work, it is a small price to pay for potentially saving the interrogatory of that work. Laws need to become obvious for them to work, for example, no one smokes if there is a ‘no smoking’ sign, likewise a watermark of ownership would clarify that any copying is prohibited.

  72. Anonymous February 29, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    When I initially had contact from the person in question, I actually went and screen shot entire google image pages, being careful to include the date on screen when this was done, showing amongst the contents those images of Walter Potters work those which were relevant , in case it would be useful to prove at a later stage that the images in question were repeated many times in Google images, none of which were watermarked nor came up with any copyright warning, I believe I saved 15 screen shot pages in the end, each page containing one or more of his particular images..

    I saw one of his images was linked to a page on the Guardian, this was a cached page of The Guardian online, I dont know if it was in the print version, however it did furnish me with the date they used the image/s, so I called them and spoke to someone in the Copyright dept and it was they who told me that they had been contacted and had paid the sum requested.

    Personally I found it rather sad that given the details I told them, that they didnt find this worth pursuing, disappointing as it may be, it is often the case with big newspapers to pay off small claims and they never get reported nor reach the courts. I just wanted to clear up why you have not been able to find any evidence of a lawsuit between him and The Guardian.

  73. sam gunn (@samgunn63) August 27, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

    I would suggest contacting @DavidAllenGreen. He seems to be Twitters ‘legal-eagle’ on subjects like this.
    Fight the fight & don’t let the bully grind you down.

  74. Cakehead Loves Evil August 27, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    Thanks Sam but ever since I published this post and told him to fuck off did not hear another peep from the scummer. It made me even more furious to find out he appears to mainly target female bloggers. I would welcome him trying to take further action / me to court if it meant his disgusting behavior came to light and no one else every paid up… x

  75. marta kalka (@martakalka) November 14, 2012 at 4:24 pm #

    Please don’t take Honki (comment no. 4) for granted – Mr. Richter might be German, but that does not explain his bahaviour whatsoever.

    Good luck to you and thanks for the inspiring work!

  76. Anonymous November 15, 2012 at 9:35 am #

    Please excuse me if some of this has been written before… There are quite a number of replies to this post.
    Never ignore a letter of this nature. It could end up costing you more. Seek legal advise (free if possible).
    This is consistent with people in UK receiving demands for MP3s they had downloaded and then contacted by a solicitor acting in the interest of (not on behalf of) the artist concerned. Whether the artist received a percentage of money that people paid up, I never found out.

    Secondly the cutting provided where he claims to have won a DM31,000 must be quite old. Unless I am mistaken the Deutschmark Mark has not been used since the majority of the EU started using the Euro.

    Good luck!

  77. Cakehead Loves Evil November 15, 2012 at 9:39 am #

    Nonsense I ignored it and never heard another peep. Remain convinced people like this are lazy bullies. Appreciate the comment though.


  1. K♥tzbröckchen 01.10. – 07.10. | Kotzendes Einhorn - October 7, 2011

    […] Fotograf Stefan Richter aus verklagt Cakehead Loves Evil und will für zwei abfotografierte Kunstwerke mehr als 2000 Euro. Keine Ahnung wie das in England […]

  2. STOP PIPA & SOPA « Cakehead Loves Evil - January 18, 2012

    […] this blog without it, nor could I write it with an internet influenced by PIPA & SOPA. Remember the looser ‘photographer’ who tried to sue me (I have not heard a peep since I told him to f**k off but feel so sad / angry for all those who […]

  3. Can Instructions be Copyrighted? | Copyright Roundup - November 14, 2012

    […] to create a plaid weave are subject to copyright protection. Also this morning I read an FB Post on bloggers getting sued for posting photographs of cakes – (Yes, we here at the Roundup love a nice […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: