(He got laid off, remember?)

>>132112

He still holds valuable trolley information. And, as long as we're pulling up old images in the other thread...

>>132115
I felt that tingle in my bones again. I'm being summoned!

Unfortunately, I recently learned that they are using some of my photographs for marketing purposes without giving me credit or paying any licensing fees. Because I can't afford a lawyer to force payment of the bill I sent them, I'm just not handing out information. Google is your friend, OP.

>>132120

$5 says there's a clause somewhere in your employment paperwork that says they can use your pictures from work for their own purposes because fuck you.

Sucks ass to see y'all get screwed over though =/

>>132128
Somebody at the company has already tried that. Their employment agreement says jack shit about photographs. At that, they still don't have legal precedent to use pictures taken while on the clock due to copyright law.

>>132135 Do you still motor for the non profit operation down there?

The non profit is the organization I was fired from. I stay far away.

>>132135
Depends what the rules are, I suppose. In some jurisdictions, there's a presumption that anything you do on the clock belongs to your employer unless they explicitly sign something that says otherwise. What's the law say on that where you are?

>>132150
So you weren't DART?

>>132152 -- IIRC, he was with MATA.

>>132150
If they're using them online, try issuing a DMCA (afaik, anyone can!) It's more effective if they're using them on their website, less effective on YouTube, Facebook, etc.. but still worth it.

Alternatively see if you can find a lawyer that works on contingency.

>>132151
Copyright law says it's mine.

>>132152
Nope. Trying to change that though. DART is rather bureaucratic and takes a while to get through applications. They anticipated that after the last posting closed on Dec. 24 of last year, they'd be ready to start a class of new operators on Feb. 22. The trainer and supervisor I'm friends with both said that they haven't even scheduled interviews.

>>132153
Nailed it.

>>132155
I'd love nothing more than to shell out $180 to have the images copyrighted and sue the shit out of them for eighteen counts of copyright infringement that I found. Yes, copyrights can be applied retroactively so to speak.

The big deal with that is that despite all the money I could make and just how loud I could scream "IN YOUR FACE!!", it still doesn't seem terribly worth it to me unless I find them continuing to use my images after sending the bill/cease and desist letter. I'm trying to focus my energy on remaining positive, prepping for the job with DART, and keeping my spirits up with the job I've got now to hold me over. I'm cleaning fish tanks, but hey, it pays the bills and the turnover is high so I'm not going to attract a lot of attention if I leave relatively quickly on good terms.

>>132157

>Copyright law says it's mine.

Are you sure? In most places, if you were employed (as opposed to merely contracting) then it would belong to your employer.

>>132157

If I were you I'd wait til the dust settles and you're in like Flynn at DART then go after Mckinney. If it nets you a few bucks, then there you go, but if they're going to screw you over there's no reason to not screw them back.