/ David Pescovitz / 12:44 pm Fri Sep 3, 2010

Resignation cake sender has invoice cake delivered to People.com

Last year, I posted about how W. Neil Berrett quit his job by presenting his boss with a resignation letter on a sheet cake. Here's the story behind Berrett's latest cake document, a frosted invoice delivered today to People.com:
Cakeinvoice Today I sent an invoice on a cake to People.com. I'm demanding $500 from them after my Cake of Resignation photo was used without permission and without payment.

Here's a timeline:

On August 10 this year I received an e-mail from an employee of People Magazine requesting permission to use my cake resignation photo in an article. This is shortly after the Jet Blue Steward event, prompting many 'Weird ways people have quit their jobs' news stories.

I replied to People and said they needed a license to use my photo - meaning they have to pay me to use it. I did not receive a reply.

On August 11 my image was used without authorization and without payment on People.com, in an article titled "Take This Job and Shove It! 8 Memorable Quitters".

I sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding my image be removed from their website. Six days later I receive an e-mail stating my image had been removed from their website. I received an offer at that time of $75 for the use of my image. That may have been reasonable if my photo's copyright had not been willfully infringed and used for six days.

So, today I sent the photo director an invoice for a usage license of my cake resignation photo. This cake was delivered today, September 3rd.

Invoice Cake to People.com (Thanks, Jess Hemerly!)

37

  2. A low-res use of an image in a relevant article would probably be fair use. I’m not sure why People even bothered talking to him first to get permission.

      1. @invictus a commercial use does not necessarily negate a fair-use. I curious whether or not he even bothered to register the copyright.

          1. @foobar That’s true, but not registering severely limits what remedies are available if a work is infringed. Works of U.S origin must be registered prior to filing an infringement lawsuit. If registration is done less than three month prior to publication only actual damages and profits are available.

            So, yeah you don’t have to register, but you may as well forget enforcing it if you don’t.

        2. “I curious whether or not he even bothered to register the copyright.”

          Lol, I curious whether or not you know anything about copyright.

          Copyright is automatic.

  9. “Uh… Accounts Payable doesn’t mind paying from this invoice, but they’re gonna need duplicates for Archives, Operations, Editorial, and the Labor Day party in Accounts Receivable.”

      1. Why can’t they just take a digital photo and print it out?

        That would be practical at the expense of NOMNOMNOM. You haven’t met the accountants at my company. (Hi Craig!)

  10. The image is on his Flickr with a CC license, by-nc-2.0. Now the question (once again) is whether a blog with an ad qualifies as “non-commercial.” Of course, they might have gotten permission, as with the notorious “view from Cory’s hammock” photo.

    2. The original “Cake of Resignation” image is posted “all rights reserved” – the “Cake of Invoicing” is the one that’s CC-licensed. (Apologies if the CoR image has recently been changed to by-nc – I’ve only just looked at the photos.)

  14. I guess they can use an image of the libel notice cake for free (as they now own it) in a next in the series article entitled, “How not to run a publishing concern”.

  18. People magazine should send this guy a cake that says, “Get bent”. If he posted a photograph and it was found on the net, it’s fair game.

    2. lol; your opinion on the matter is very different to the realities of rights and laws.

      @prh99 No one ‘registers’ copyright; it would be a logistical nightmare registering everything you produce; every letter, every scribble.

      You register trademarks and patents; not copyright.

      Enforcing it is difficult either way in most countries as copyright is a civil matter, not a legal one.

      1. “lol; your opinion on the matter is very different to the realities of rights and laws”

        It’s not an opinion the Copyright Office agrees, I linked to their document and I can link you to law it’s self. The U.S treats all foreign works as registered by default, but works of U.S origin require registration in order to have all remedies available.

        http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#411

        “No one ‘registers’ copyright; it would be a logistical nightmare registering everything you produce; every letter, every scribble.”

        You’d be wrong. Registrations are public record, you can request registration information from the copyright office. I guarantee you if send a request for the information on say Windows or OS X it’s registered same with major motion pictures.

        “Copyright is automatic”

        I didn’t say it wasn’t, I said if you do not register your ability to pursue infringement is severely limited.

        “Enforcing it is difficult either way in most countries as copyright is a civil matter, not a legal one.”

        I think you mean criminal. Civil matters are part of the legal system so by definition it’s still a legal on.

        Don’t believe me, look it up.

  19. Fair use is one of the most misunderstood concepts on these here fast & loose internets. This isn’t even close to being a case of fair use, it’s actually blatant & willful infringement.

  20. Kiino Villand • #32 • 9:26 AM Monday, Sep 6, 2010 • Reply

    Fair use is one of the most misunderstood concepts on these here fast & loose internets. This isn’t even close to being a case of fair use, it’s actually blatant & willful infringement.

    ——————————————–

    If the article provided “attribution” — the “who” in the 5 W’s of a news story — it’s “fair use.”

    There’s no representation that the cake is anyone’s except the author’s, and that connection has been attributed. That’s “Fair Use.”

    Next we’ll have “resignation crop circles.” Gawd save me from “clever people.”

  21. It’s unlikely he owns the copyright to the original photo, anyways — assuming that’s him in the photo (which, if not, then the below does not apply). Unless it was taken using a timer, that is. Copyright is owned by the person who TOOK the photo (presumably a coworker), not the person IN the photo or the person who created an object featured in the photo. Of course, that person may have formally transferred copyright to him in a written document. Or it’s possible that the person who took the photo did so as part of his or her professional duties, meaning that copyright would belong to his or her employer. But in no way would a person who’s simply IN a photo automatically own the rights to the photo.

  23. Regardless of copyright, which lies automatically with the photographer, this is PEOPLE we are talking about. How unprofessional of a major mag to steal anyones work and use it when the owner of the work already told them that they could not use it without permission.

Comments are closed.