I do have problems and trouble, but not with the KPA but i want to share this. URGENTLY!

    Yes, this all is very bad.


    It's great that you put this here up - so others will check their pages for copyright issues.



    Copyright is one case 'trade mark right' is another - I just removed all big pictures of the amps I profiled from my website.
    (and erased logo's like 'Fender' from the small pictures).

    (All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners, which are in no way associated or affiliated with soundside.de)


    Great Profiles --> soundside.de

    Edited once, last by Armin ().

    Unfortunatly its not this easy.


    You are right about 'copyright' if I take the picture I own the copyright.


    But if it contains people - like in the case of the OP of Ac/Dc - I would need a written 'model release' from all visible people before I can put it on my webside.


    The other point is 'trademark' if I use pictures of products from others e.g Fender or Marshall for my own products (profiles) - then this could lead to trouble if the size of the pictures is to large/detailed or if (protected) logos are visible (Fender or Marshall sign)


    So in this cas I have to be clear that any other company is not associated with my work.


    some more

    (All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners, which are in no way associated or affiliated with soundside.de)


    Great Profiles --> soundside.de

    Edited once, last by Armin ().

    Yes, its complicated buy we all would not like to buy a china Fender copy with a Fender logo thinking its a real Fender.


    I am not even sure if the Kemper Videos showing how amps from other companies are profiled could be a problem for Kemper.


    I know for sure that all profiles named like the real thing e.g. 'Fender Twin' could be a problem - surely for anyone selling or even exchanging it e.g. via rig exchange.

    (All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners, which are in no way associated or affiliated with soundside.de)


    Great Profiles --> soundside.de

    Edited once, last by Armin ().

    wait. gimme a break.


    i have deleted now any photo that has not been made by my-myself-and-i with my own camera.
    even destroyed old covers, because there were tiny rests of the work of others. so far, so good.
    but i own guitars and i show them on my site. photographed 'em by myself. so more or less i am
    advertising those brands. and this COULD, maybe, lead to trouble?


    this - with a good lawyer on your side - could lead then to a situation when i want to sell a volkswagen on
    ebay i have to erase all hints that it actually is a volkswagen, erasing the logo on the pic and advertising
    the car as "a middle-class car from the company in wolfsburg named after a sort of sports".
    is it that insane now?


    what we need is a compendium for the webhoster and/or seller and/or poster and/or blogger. should we give our marc
    a hint because he posted a pic of thomas blug in frankfurt and i don't know whether he was asked for permission ...


    this is getting a never-ending story

    My occupation: showing teenagers the many hidden secrets of the A-minor chord on the guitar.


    If you use your own picture of your own amp, car or whatever - to sell that amp, car or whatever - then all is fine.


    If you use your own picture of your own amp - or even only the name of an amp - to advertise for your business e.g. 'Fender Guitar School' - then you get trouble.
    The same is true for artist names e,g, 'Here you learn to play the guitar like Jimi Hendrix'.


    If I would advertise my own profiles - captured from my own amps - as authentic 'Fender Deluxe Profiles', name then 'Fender Deluxe Clean', 'Fender Deluxe Drive' - then I would get trouble.


    That's the reason why all amp modelers have these cryptic names 'Brit Stack' instead of 'Marshall Stack' or 'American Clean' instead of 'Fender Clean'.
    If you rename the patches, profiles or whatever later for your personal use - all is fine - but you can get trouble if you distribute these profiles/patches (free or paid).


    It must be clear that there is no business relationship between you and the trademark holder of the product you show.


    E.g. if you sell a Marshall clone on eBay and write 'Marshall clone' in the text - you can get trouble - because you use the trademark Marshall to sell something different. The same is true for some 'Dumble in a box' Overdrive pedals ....



    That's why I have this line on my webpage:


    "
    All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners, which are in no way associated or affiliated with soundside.de
    These trademarks are used solely for the purpose of describing certain amplifier or speaker tones trying to produce with our profile packs
    "

    (All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners, which are in no way associated or affiliated with soundside.de)


    Great Profiles --> soundside.de

    Now it is getting ugly and insane:


    "....Uploading
    or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of
    the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's
    exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to
    have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up
    to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is
    proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to
    $150,000     for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work
    may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright
    owner to enforce his or her rights...."


    Thus quoting a short passage by the US copyright office, the manager of the photographer now threatens my lawyer that he has to proof his certificate of authority first and asap.
    He further states that he was instructed to a lawsuit concerning information of how long and what exactly has been used. He says that 310.- Euro would have been the fee according to the MFM (german price list) plus the 100% because using the photo without naming the copyright holder. (Again: if i knew the photo was copyrighted i never used it in the first place). That his boss is not a "Wald- und Wiesenphotograph" (meaning he is something special and famous [he writes in german]) and that this fee would not be acceptable. He says further that if we do not make an acceptable arrangement (what is acceptable?) which is much higher HE is going to court! (My lawyer wrote to the photographer and copyrightholder who is not responding but for the fifth time now this "manager").


    I am seriously trembling, but nevertheless i would like to hear what a judge would have to say, but then again, i would have to pay for the judge and the lawyer of my opponent. Something stinks here as this manager constantly tries to sound like a lawyer, has not until now shown proof of his legal justification and threatens without pause.


    phhh... gimme a break.

    My occupation: showing teenagers the many hidden secrets of the A-minor chord on the guitar.

    Edited once, last by Geraldo7 ().

    btw. you use illegally the trademarks 'Jimi Hendrix', 'Carlos Santana', 'Led Zeppelin' and 'AC/DC' on your website.


    At least should you add some disclaimer - like this:
    Disclaimer

    (All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners, which are in no way associated or affiliated with soundside.de)


    Great Profiles --> soundside.de

    once and for all times:


    does anybody know a legal way to say: Jimi Seattle, Deep Zep and a few others are the reason why i play guitar?


    • a text link? (i think yes)
    • a link to their homepage (i think yes)
    • a screenshot of the homepage with a link (i don't know yet)
    • a licence-free photo link to their hompage (but where to get it)
    • something else
    • nothing at all

    does anybody know, because this way communication is getting almost impossible

    My occupation: showing teenagers the many hidden secrets of the A-minor chord on the guitar.

    For Trade Mark Stuff... just ensure that on the page it says 'All Trade Marks Acknowleged' and that from my expeience with some massive company litigation renders that aspect useless to them... just thought I would mention it in case no one else did. At the very least that is the case in the UK. ;)

    Careful I'm watching you...

    Geraldo,


    I think at this point you should just calm down and stop getting every punches straight on the chin. It doesn't help you or your case. It is clear that these guys are going for the big fishes and obviously think that they have one.


    At this point, knowing that you might pay a lot, why would you continue to play the good guy (your lawyer also). I think it is time to show your teeth and at least let them clearly know that you will not go down without a nasty fight.


    What about a phone call between both parties to at least hear and gauge in what kind of pissing contest you are in for?


    Again, no excuses, NEVER admit you are guilty of anything in any type of communication. This is how the justice system works (US and Canada). The more you say, the more ammunition you give to the other side and vice-versa.
    Basically, your goal is to make them talk and document/record whatever nonsense they have to say to be so unreasonable and use that against them later on if this continues.


    But in all honesty, you need to shake this scare off of you and become more aggressive towards them and see if it might not help turn the table to your advantage. Having an idea of your character, once this is over to your advantage, you could then just leave everything drop and you could put that bad experience behind you.


    Again, this is just what I would do. If someone goes to your jugular, you have every right to do exactly the same and it should be expected.


    Don't go down before paying them a ride for their money because at this point you don't have anything to lose. They are being a**holes by finding every bits and pieces of law to scare you. You can be an a**hole yourself now dealing with them because being nice at this point will not help you anymore.


    Cheers,


    Marc.

    I cannot thank you enough, StealthAMD


    You have nailed the main point. This whole thing is an attack! My allergy has become very sincere the day after i received the mail
    in which they said that they do not accept my apology. I am feeling weak, do not sleep well and - i have to confess it - think about this
    15 hours of the day. I have to get it out of my system.


    I have thought about calling Los Angeles already, because i even doubt whether the manager actually sits in this office in LA, cause he
    writes always @2 AM in the morning Western Time. Strange, isn't it? My lawyer has now send the proof that the photo was online only
    for less than 3 months and that the regular fee would have been 150.- Euro. Now let's see what happens.


    I am in no way "a big fish", my music does not make enough money, i drive taxi also. I ask myself again and again: why, why threatening
    someone to pay (see above) to go to court and make you pay 30 to 150 grand, judged by "US jury". is this the american way of life?
    i hope this ugly scene of PITAS (pain in the ....) is not even half of the story.


    in any case, thanks for sharing

    My occupation: showing teenagers the many hidden secrets of the A-minor chord on the guitar.

    I feel eased, unburdened and somehow relieved now :thumbup:


    Yes it is going on. They will go to court now. This sits fine with me. Received the mail an hour ago.
    I have faith and trust in a german court and finally no more threatening and BS-mails from california!
    While this may cost me more money, i want to see my opponents prove their case.


    No more "good morning from california" (at 2AM western time, sic!) and then threatening the shit out of me.


    The case still reads like that: i have used without further thinking a copy-pasted photo of ac/dc for 80 days on a sub-sub-page on my homepage.
    I would have paid the double fee and some extra. Now the manager says that i am lying and used the photo since 2012. i am curious how he is going to
    prove an obvious lie, because my website went online on january the 7th (2013!!!)


    Court? So be it!


    I will keep you updated and thanks for the community for the tremendous support i received.


    P.S: check your sites for material that might cause problems, buy a good camera and shoot photos.

    My occupation: showing teenagers the many hidden secrets of the A-minor chord on the guitar.

    Edited once, last by Geraldo7 ().

    I can't see how a guy in California could get a judgement against you in Germany and collect any money. Your attorney should be able to tell you what the odds are against this. He's got to convince a German court to take your money away from you?? In terms of real damage, who has been damaged more? You or him. To me, it seems the damage to you is pretty real. Did you profit in any way from the photo? Did you damage his reputation? Does not seem like it to me. In the mean time they seem to have scared you pretty bad. Who's acting in bad faith? You or him? The law, real law, is about compensating for real damage. I agree with the others, this guy is fishing. If it were me I would, through my lawyer, tell him to bite me and pound sand and try and collect. But I live in Texas and he would have a very hard time getting anything from me.