Info Andrew/Ashley Hager - You Decide

[Royal Morphz]

Ok guys this is an account that started in the early part of 09. I wanted a logo designed for Royal Morphz and I commissioned Ashley (Hagar) to design what now has been the face of Royal Morphz. The Piedbald BP drawing with the glowing red text is what I have been branding as Royal Morphz since day one. She started on my logo but couldn’t finish it because of not knowing how a piece of software ran.

This is where I was introduced to Andrew Hager (Ceradigital.com on most forums). He took over and pretty much I never dealt with Ashley directly again. He brought up that my logo would look nice on a business card (which is something I wanted as well) so he shot me over the file to get to the printer.

We started what I would consider a friendship, he advised me on photography equipment and I picked up quite a bit of info from him. Well one day I brought up the idea of a website, I mean I had the logo and the snakes why not get a website going. He said he knew how to build websites and started figuring out what we wanted. The website was to be done for $350 dollars which I offered to pay a portion up front, but he declined. I just figured we might work it out in trade or something. He set out on working on it. I never really saw anything that showed me he was doing any work on it, but I was excited. Around the time I was getting ready to attend the NARBC show in Anaheim he let me know the site would be up and running by 9-20-09.

Now fast forward to 10-10-09 and he finally got me a screen shot I would estimate we started the talks in maybe May 09 about the website. So with a screen shot there I went out and bought my hosting for the Site. Now he had explained that he had some software that would allow me to have an online store. Now I have to admit this sounded really cool in theory, but once he started showing me about it there was one major flaw. I didn’t think anyone would want to put there credit card info into a new BP breeders new website. So with that said I did ask him to scrap that for a traditional available page.

One day Andrew asked me to send them money toward the site so he and Ashley could put some money down on a Ruppel line Super Pastel. I didn’t have the funds in paypal and was getting ready for a show and I told him if a sale went through I would paypal it over to them. It didn’t go through and I told him up front I was sorry but I didn’t have the money. He said ok and then I notice that the site is down and in its place was a nice construction page. I didn’t question him on this and it was set up that he call me on Monday 11-09-09 to walk me through the available page layout and teach me how to add and delete ads. Come Wednesday and I hadn’t heard from him I went with a different designer.

Within about 60 hours I had RoyalMorphz.com up and running. Now I post up a few good guy posts for the Designer and on one of the forums (I will link it at the bottom of this post) Andrew posted he thought I stole his design for the website. Now I will tell you that the new designer just used what I gave him he did not know that I didn’t own the website design. When I changed the design then the topic with Andrew changed. Now I had stolen the logo that I bought previously, apparently I just bought the logo for use on my business cards??????? I mean who would have thought I would have had to buy my logo each time I chose to use it. Now this is where I must admit ignorance, I didn’t know that there were files that I should have requested when I got the original logo design. Now this is my fault in of it’s own.

Andrew went on to complain that I misused a rendering of my logo, which is an outline of my Piedbald BP logo. So I removed it now lets count I have changed the website design and now taken off an outline of MY logo. Then he states in the linked thread that I can take the logo and do whatever I want with it (it’s my logo of course I will use it as I see fit). That neither one of us has paperwork on the matter and its basically a dead subject and then its back to my website design is a rip off again. So I don’t know what to do about this so I stop posting for the most part.

I take a few days off cool down a bit and PM him saying hey we are adults and need to work this out. So just to see what he wanted for the files that so far everyone I’ve spoken to said I should have gotten in the first place. No response to that then out of the blue today 11-18-09 I get a call from Andrew. I answer because I want this over with, he says that he has spoken with a copyright law firm and they advised him that we can work it out or take it to court I told him I wanted to work it out and find a number that they wanted for the work. A few hours later I get a call and he has a number but also Ashley wants a public apology (for what I don’t know) along with $500 dollars for the files. Now I almost choked, $500 dollars for logo files I had already paid for. I mean I was thinking $100 bucks, the whole website was only supposed to cost $350 lol. Well I told him that was out of the question as I could get another logo drawn up for around 200 bucks.

We kicked a few more options before saying you know what we don’t want the files. Then they bring up a lawyer again, now I don’t know if Andrew knows me very well but my father was a lawyer and well before he passed he made sure all of us kids went to college so there are a few more lawyers in the family. If I know one thing when you are threatened with a lawsuit you quit talking right then I had ignored this point earlier, this time I was not. I told Andrew that I wanted my logo to stay as is and for him to have his attorney contact us.

Now I ask you this I am on these boards a lot if anything would let you know I posted what would it be I think it would be MY logo. This is just a information thread and should be looked at as such. I ask you all should I have to buy my logo over and over again?

If you want to view the last place this was brought up here it is: http://www.reptileradio.net/reptileradio/showthread.php?t=13150

 

[xanaxez]

All if it should be mentioned. so in all fair... this should be brung to andrews attention for him to explain. it still comes to this.. the logo you bought was the one designed. you did not buy and do not own the original hand drawn copyright.

 

[Royal Morphz]

All if it should be mentioned. so in all fair... this should be brung to andrews attention for him to explain. it still comes to this.. the logo you bought was the one designed. you did not buy and do not own the original hand drawn copyright.

Thank you a email was sent to Andrew as soon as these were put up and let me add these were put up because we couldn't reach an agreement and he has threatened lawsuit more than once.

 

[SnakeEyesExotics]

Tim, that seems completely absurd in my opinion! No, you absolutely should not have to pay for the logo every time you want to use it. Unless they have it in writing where you agreed that the logo was only for the business cards, they have nothing. I don't understand how it took him that freakin long with the site too. If he wanted the money and needed it that badly, he would have had the site up and running promptly.

Good Luck!
Anya

 

[xanaxez]

heres the best answer i can find for this situation... so read it carefully lol.


What is copyright?

Copyright is the exclusive right to control reproduction and commercial exploitation of your creative work. Copyright protects any kind of artwork, including illustrations, photographs and graphic design. Except under certain circumstances (see “work made for hire” below), you own the copyright in your work at the moment you create it in a “fixed” form of “expression.” A fixed form of expression is any tangible medium that can be perceived by humans, including traditional forms—such as paintings, sculptures, writings—and new forms that require a machine to perceive (e.g., GIF files, CDs, websites).
What about “work made for hire”?

Generally, the person who creates a work is considered its “author” and the automatic owner of copyright in that work under copyright law. However, there is a limited exception under the “work made for hire” doctrine: if you are an employee, your employer is considered the author and automatic copyright owner of any work you create within the scope of your employment. In most cases, this doctrine applies only to full-time employees. If you are doing the work as an independent contractor, your work can legally be “work made for hire” only if your contract specifically says so, and your work fits one of a few narrow categories, e.g., a contribution to a collective work such as an encyclopedia, or a compilation work, such as a website.
What happens if the work is not made for hire?

When you perform graphic art services for a client, your client is paying for rights to use your work under your copyright. Identifying the scope of such rights can be the most important part of your contract with your client.

You own your copyright unless you sign a written assignment giving copyright ownership to someone else. In that case, your contract with your client will say something like you “assign all rights, including copyright.” But you can also give (or lend) your client just a piece of your copyright. Copyright is really a “bundle” of several different exclusive rights. For graphic designers, the relevant exclusive rights are the rights to (1) reproduce, (2) display, and (3) make adaptations (“derivative works”) based on your work. Each exclusive right in the copyright bundle can be owned separately. For example, you can give a newspaper the exclusive right to reproduce your comic strip, and you can keep the exclusive right to adapt the strip for an animated film. Moreover, you can give permission, or a “license,” under any of the bundled rights on a nonexclusive basis. For example, under your reproduction rights, you can grant a publisher the right to reproduce your painting as a book cover, and you can keep the right to reproduce it as a giclee print.
When should a client own your copyright?

Frequently, your client will want to own your copyright. That means your client will own the entire bundle of rights, and you no longer have the right to control how often, or in what manner, the work is used. This is not always necessary or appropriate. Generally, it is better for the scope of the license to closely track the client’s intended use of your work. For example, suppose you are hired to do a spot illustration for an article in a weekly magazine. Your fee is the standard, reasonable amount for that one time use. However, if your contract assigns copyright to the magazine, the magazine can use your illustration again; for example, it might adapt the illustration to create a logo for an ongoing weekly column, without any further compensation to you.

On the other hand, if your contract grants a one-time license to reproduce the illustration, the magazine must seek your permission, in the form of another license with another fee, before it can legally adapt your illustration for the column logo. This is true even if your license to the magazine is exclusive, that is, if you agree not to allow any other entity to publish the illustration. The magazine’s rights would still be limited to the one-time use identified in your contract.

Another important reason to retain copyright is to ensure that you have the right to create similar works for other clients. If you assign copyright to one client, and then create a similar illustration for another client, the second illustration could infringe the first client’s copyright in your earlier work. For example, in one case a jury found such infringement with respect to greeting cards that the same artists had created for different companies.

Obviously, for some types of work it is appropriate for the client own your entire copyright, for example, corporate identity packages, logos, websites or any other works that are intended to have an ongoing, exclusive marketing presence for your client. It would not be appropriate for you to re-license that kind of work to another client. In such situations, you should ensure that you have the continuing right to display and reproduce the work in your print and online portfolios; otherwise, you no longer need to worry about copyright.
What is copyright infringement?

Copyright infringement happens whenever someone makes copies or commercially exploits a work without the copyright owner’s permission. The second work must actually be copied from the first work—if you just happen to create a very similar work independently, that is not infringement. The problems arise when one artist uses another artist’s work as reference. To be infringing, the second artist’s works need not be identical. The standard for infringement is whether the second work is “substantially similar” to the original work. (Contrary to popular belief, there is no “20 percent rule,” i.e., you cannot escape infringement by changing something by 20 percent. Infringement is not a mathematical calculation.)

“Substantially similar” means that an average person viewing the two works would recognize that the “artistic expression” in one was copied from the other. The focus on “artistic expression” is meant to distinguish between illegal copying, which is infringement, and being inspired by someone else’s work, which is not illegal. “Artistic expression” means the specific artistic choices and details that go into a work, such as composition, rendering and colors, but not general concepts such as subject matter or similar artistic style. However, courts often describe infringing works as having the same “look and feel” as the originals. Sometimes work depicting similar content in the same unique artistic style are held infringing, even if specific details are different.

Unfortunately, infringement is a common occurrence in the graphic arts. Here are some examples:

* A licensee re-uses the work beyond the scope of the license, as in the example above where the magazine adapts the illustration for a column logo.
* An illustrator makes a painting from a photograph. Many people think photographs are just factual records, and thus can be freely copied, or that changing the medium is sufficient to avoid infringement. This is not correct. Photographs are fully protected as copyrighted works. If you copy the artistic expression of a photograph, e.g., the choice of subject matter, props, lighting, point of view, composition, etc., you have infringed the copyright in the photograph.
* An illustrator copies the unique way another illustrator draws figures.
* An ad campaign uses slogans, images and page designs similar to those of another ad campaign.

Many designers are surprised to learn that infringement occurs even when you merely copy someone’s work for intermediate purposes, as in the following examples:

* An advertising agency creates a comp using images from an artist’s or photographer’s portfolio. The comp itself is an act of infringement. If the final artwork is substantially similar to the art that was used in the comp, it counts as a second infringement.
* An image is digitally copied (e.g., scanned or downloaded) in order to manipulate it with a program like Photoshop. The mere act of making the precursor digital copy counts as a separate act of infringement, regardless of whether the final manipulated image is substantially similar.

Who is liable for infringement?

Any person or entity involved in the unauthorized use of a copyrighted work, from the initial copying through publication and distribution, is liable for infringement. For example, in one case where a photograph was used in a comp without permission, the photographer sued the ad agency and the agency’s client for whom the ad was created. The court awarded the photographer $2,750 in actual damages (the fee he would have charged had he been given the final assignment), $57,358 for the ad agency’s net revenue earned from the project, his attorneys’ fees and an injunction preventing further use of the infringing ads.
What about fair use?

“Fair use” will excuse an otherwise infringing use under certain limited circumstances. The courts balance several factors to determine whether a particular situation qualifies as fair use. Generally, non-commercial editorial or educational uses will be fair use. Parody will also qualify, but only if the work directly parodies something about the original work. For example, a Los Angeles federal court rejected the fair use defense for a parody entitled “The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice,” which used verses and artwork reminiscent of Dr. Seuss to mock the O.J. Simpson trial. The court did not believe the book also critiqued Dr. Seuss.

“Transformative” works may also be fair use. A work is “transformative” when the copyrighted material is “transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understanding.” Under this standard, a New York federal court recently held that a collage-like painting by Jeff Koons, which incorporated an image copied from a fashion photograph with other disparate images, was fair use.
Why should you register your copyrights?

Even though you have copyright ownership as soon as you create your work, under U.S. law you have no rights to enforce your copyright until you register. Generally you must have filed for copyright registration before the infringement occurs in order to have the full scope of copyright protection (the exception is if you filed within three months of the first publication of your work; in that case, you have full protection even if the infringement occurs earlier). Full protection for such early registration gives you two important remedies: the right to recover your attorneys’ fees when you win the lawsuit, and the right to an award of statutory damages. Statutory damages means a jury can award you an amount of money even if you cannot prove the infringement caused you a specific monetary loss. (Currently, the law sets a minimum of $750 and a maximum of $150,000 in statutory damages for willful infringement.)

Many artists know that they cannot afford litigation, so they believe these advantages of early registration are not relevant. However, in most cases it is the possibility of a lawsuit, rather than actual litigation, that gives you the bargaining power to stop an infringement, and often, obtain a monetary settlement. When defendants receive a letter raising an infringement claim, their first step is to determine whether you have a copyright registration that predates the infringement. If you do, they know that you are entitled to sue them for statutory damages and recover your attorney’s fees. Your registration enhances their risk of both defending a lawsuit and incurring monetary damages, so they are motivated to settle. On the other hand, if they learn that you don’t have an early registration, most infringers assume that you will not be able to sue them, and they will be less inclined to negotiate in good faith for a reasonable settlement.

There is no substitute for early registration. (Contrary to a popular myth, there is no “poor man’s copyright”—putting a copy of your work in an envelope and mailing it back to yourself will not provide any legal protection.) The best practice is to register any work that will be seen by the public or potential clients, including your portfolio and websites. Unauthorized copying is temptingly easy, and infringements are common. Early registration is the best proactive step you can take to ensure that you will have the full power to react in the unfortunate event that your work is infringed.

 

[AaronP]

The problem with what you posted xanaxez is that it implies they registered it to begin with. Which wasn't the case.

 

[xanaxez]

The problem with what you posted xanaxez is that it implies they registered it to begin with. Which wasn't the case.

Are you sure they didnt? also... theres no problem with what i posted... if you read the entire articale then you would have read what you just stated also. either way.. if you do websites... you know you can not alter any image without consent of the copyright holder.

 

[AaronP]

Are you sure they didnt? also... theres no problem with what i posted... if you read the entire articale then you would have read what you just stated also. either way.. if you do websites... you know you can not alter any image without consent of the copyright holder.

Because a copyright comes with paperwork, formal paperwork, none of which has ever existed else it would have been presented and this topic wouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[xanaxez]

Because a copyright comes with paperwork, formal paperwork, none of which has ever existed else it would have been presented and this topic wouldn't exist in the first place.

From my understanding from both parties... neither does a contract... so therefor he still isnt entitled to you use it.

 

[KathyLove]

Interesting article - thanks!

"...Except under certain circumstances (see “work made for hire” below), you own the copyright in your work at the moment you create it in a “fixed” form of “expression.” A fixed form of expression is any tangible medium that can be perceived by humans..."

According to this article, it does not need to be registered. It sounds like you would need a contract stating you have all rights to do whatever you want with it, to be in the clear?

I am far from a lawyer! But Bill sells his photos and articles, so we have dealt with similar things. Whenever Reptiles Magazine sends him a contract for an article or photos, it always says they get first time North American publishing rights only. If they decide they want to use it on their website as well, they send an additional contract with an additional payment. I am not qualified to give a legal opinion, but that is how I have seen it done by a magazine publisher. That is not exactly your situation, but there are some similarities. But a legal opinion from a copyright lawyer is probably what is needed.

 

[AaronP]

From my understanding from both parties... neither does a contract... so therefor he still isnt entitled to you use it.

Well neither of us are Copyright Lawyers, so really they would be able to provide the best opinion.

You may want to look into "Implied Copyright Laws":
http://www.acumenlawgroup.com/publication-categories/implied-copyright-licenses/

Consider the following scenario: A small business owner finds a graphic designer on Craigslist to design a logo for his business cards. The graphic designer designs the logo, the business owner pays the graphic designer, and both parties happily go their separate ways. No agreement is ever put into writing. Months later, the business owner launches a national advertising campaign featuring the business card logo created by the graphic designer. Upon seeing the advertising campaign, the graphic designer contacts the business owner, claims that she owns the copyright to the logo, and demands that the business owner pay for a license to use the logo on a national scale. Is the graphic designer’s demand legitimate? If so, what can the business owner do in this situation? More fundamentally, who actually owns the copyright in the logo?

Copyrights Ownership

Generally, copyright ownership in a creative work is vested in the author(s) of the work itself. Thus, in the scenario above, the graphic designer is in fact the author and rightful copyright owner. There is an exception to this rule, however: in the case of a work made for hire, the employer is considered the legal author of work created by his/her employees. There are really only two scenarios in which a work for hire can exist: (1) work created by an independent contractor, and (2) work prepared by an employee within the scope of his employment. For work created by an independent contractor, two important conditions must be met to invoke the work for hire doctrine: (1) the work is commissioned; and (2) there is a written contract memorializing the arrangement as a work made for hire.

So what does this mean for the business owner in our scenario? The graphic designer was not his employee, and there is no written contract, so the doctrine of work for hire does not apply. Is our business owner entirely out of luck? Fortunately for him, the doctrine of implied license may create the contract he failed to obtain.

The Implied License

Each copyright author generally has five exclusive rights: (1) the right to reproduce the copyrighted work; (2) the right to prepare derivative works based upon the work; (3) the right to distribute copies of the work to the public; (4) the right to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and (5) the right to display the copyrighted work publicly. Copyright authors are free to license all or a portion of their rights to third parties. While the ownership of the copyright stays with the author, a licensee may be permitted to distribute copies of the copyright, or use it publicly, etc. In the absence of an actual written agreement between the parties, an implied license to use the copyright may arise based on the conduct of the parties. Ultimately, an implied license provides the licensee (the business owner in our scenario) some nonexclusive rights to use the copyrighted work to the extent that the copyright author would have allowed had the parties initially negotiated and signed an agreement.

Generally, courts create implied nonexclusive licenses where (1) the licensee requests the creation of the work, (2) the licensor makes that particular work and delivers it to the licensee, and (3) the licensor intends that the licensee copy and distribute his work. See I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768, 772 (7th Cir. 1996). In our initial scenario, the graphic designer owns the copyright to the logo. However, the conduct of the parties clearly demonstrates that the logo was created for use by the business owner. As such, an implied license may be created based on what the parties would have agreed to had there been a written contract. Nonetheless, courts analyzing the same scenario would still consider to what extent and for what purposes the graphic designer created the logo in the first place. Is its use in a national campaign advertisement outside the scope of the implied license, which may have been limited to use on a business card? Is it reasonable to assume that the business owner can use the logo so long as it is used for the purpose of his business? While the implied license may be an effective gap-filler in the absence of a written agreement, it does not absolve our business owner from liability for unfettered use of the logo.

The best way to avoid such ambiguity is, of course, to negotiate the terms of the agreement and put everything into writing: who owns the logo, what the business owner can do with the logo, what rights, if any, does the graphic designer have in the logo after the business owner pays, etc . If you are interested in learning more about implied licenses or have a copyright dispute, please feel free to contact us to speak with one of our attorneys at Acumen Law Group.

 

[Royal Morphz]

Thank you all for your input the whole point for any of the threads I posts is to show that Andrew and Ashley knowingly didn't say that I couldnt use said logo for my business I mean its on my business card. Then because of a fall out on a botched website all this comes up I have been using the signature banners and business card for about 8 months. Never has this come up and I also didnt change the logo to make my website logo other than the text saying Tim Johnson, my email and my numbers it is exactly as my business card so I didnt change it. As far as that is concerned I think that I am in the realm of reason as long as I dont change the way th Pied logo looks.

 

[KathyLove]

If you didn't sign a contract, did you get anything else in writing? Maybe a proposal, an agreement, even a receipt as to what the payment was for?

 

[Royal Morphz]

Yes Kathy I do have a receipt for the work but in bad judgement(keep in mind they are thought to be friends) I thanked them for getting me files for my card printer on that receipt

 

[Southern Wolf]

Best of luck on this Tim. He was supposed to help me on my site... but we never got that far. I ended up getting some help from someone else.... From the sounds of it... its a good thing I did.

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

Forcing a client to pay for usage of a logo each time they need it is bad business. A quality, legit design firm will not do that. I have been working in the graphic and web field for five years...No company I have worked for (including AT&T) has ever operated in that manner (nor do I run my own business in that way). They are misusing copyright law. It was never intended to be in reference to commissioned work.

Any legit company will provide a detailed proposal and contract before a project commences. Do not be fooled by cheap prices. In the end, you get what you pay for. Protect yourself. Do your research! Ask questions!

In reference to logo design in particular...Make sure you are getting original vector logo files (AI or EPS) from whomever you use. A vector logo will scale to any size, a rasterized logo will not without loss of quality. A rasterized logo is useless for most people because they won't be able to enlarge it for show banners, business cards, billboards, etc.

In reference to website design (in particular programming), make sure they plan to program your website correctly. Tables are not the correct way to program a website! Make sure the site validates. Make sure it works in IE6, IE7, IE8 and FF3. Make sure it works effectively in screen resolutions from 1024w to 1680w. Test, test, test!

Sorry for my rant, but I hate seeing fly by night "design firms" that rip people off and/or provide a subpar end product.

 

[Kaa22]

Ok, where to start with this.

We have not replied to this thread or the one located on FaunaClassifieds, as we wanted to handle it differently, so we walked away from this mess. It just seems that the more we let this go, the more it is slightly being brought up, and we feel our name is being slandered by this account, so we are finally here to explain exactly what went on between us and Tim. Throughout this post screenshots will be posted to back up these accounts. They are full sized, so they will be provided as links.

In early May, my wife was contacted by our ‘friend’, Patrick Long. He knew both her and I had done graphics work, including business card designs in the past. He had given an attempt at Tim’s business card (which will be posted below this paragraph)… but Tim wanted something ‘classier’. This is where Ashley had come into the scene. Tim explained roughly what he wanted his card to include along with him wanting the design to be based off of what Patrick had made for him, for instance he liked the color and font that Patrick had picked. She designed the main layout of the card and everything, including the snake, that was based off of her Pastel Ball Python in regards to shape. The facial design and expression was used from different drawings Ashley had done in the past, which Tim liked and picked out. Ashley sent scans of the Pied Bp during each design progression in order to ensure that Tim was happy how things were coming along. The Pied was the main discussion focal point between Ashley and Tim as they both felt it was what “made” the card. After near completion of the card, Ashley began bumping into a problem with her software, as she wanted a specific effect to be done to card that she could not figure out how to create using Corel Painter X, so the files were sent over to me, and I was soon introduced to Tim. After the completion of the business card Ashley was paid $100 through PayPal as commissioned work. She was not a “pay to hire” (Unless Tim can provide proper paperwork including payroll papers with Ashley’s Social security number on them).

Patricks original concept-
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Kaa22/patricksdesign.jpg

Ashleys original artwork done before this business card...
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Kaa22/pre-headscans.jpg

Artwork progression, showing it was nothing more being done, other than a business card.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Kaa22/originalscan1.jpg
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Kaa22/originalscan2.jpg
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Kaa22/originalscan3.jpg
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Kaa22/card_almostdone.jpg

And the final file to be received, as this is what was paid for-
http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Kaa22/redone2.jpg

Ashleys pay, and only pay. In Tims words "payment for the business cards"... not a thank you for them. There are two others to follow, showing neither her, nor I had received payment from Tim on anything, including a "Logo" Payment.
http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Kaa22/paypalstatement.jpg
http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Kaa22/paypalstatement2.jpg
-Mine-
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Kaa22/andrew_paypalstatement.jpg

Tim fully understood he was paying Ashley in regards to a business card design, as well as her. This is why Tim had only received the business card file, rather than the entire collection of files, as this is what he paid for, and he was fully fine with this.

Tim had asked me to build him a website, shortly after the card was finished, and I declined for the time being. I had explained to him that I was just making a move from NW Ohio, to Southern Florida, and I had also been working night shift for the time being, so my hands were tied. Tim offered to pay the money up front if I would start working on it soon, and I rejected. I explained to him that I would like to start working on the website when I knew I had the open time, not take money before hand when I didn’t know when things would settle for me. Tim understood and had no problem with it.

During the time I was moving and working I kept in contact with Tim. He had hit me up numerous times for advice on photography equipment, techniques, and random other odds and ends dealing with photography and how to get animals to sit still, etc. I had no problem with it, and gladly helped him out. I again explained the time frame to him on the website, and would not be able to take it in as a job until hopefully later that year when things calmed down, and he accepted, stating he’d like to go with me for the web design as I was offering him a good price. Between friends the price was to be $350. The cost was going to cover my wife’s graphics work and for Tim to gain partial copyright for him to use the logo anywhere outside the business card, as long as the picture was not modified or changed in anyway. I was doing the coding end of the website for free, as a friend. Tim understood, and had no problem with it.

After moving to Florida, I notified Tim that I had time open, and I agreed to take on his website design, as he had not contacted another designer at this time. The website was started on October 12th 2009. A screen shot below shows the file creation date. Tim has been leading people on to believe that I have been working on his site for much longer, and that I have been beating around the bush and not getting it finished.

Screen shot of original creation date-
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Kaa22/websitecreationdate.jpg

Now there is mention of different “due dates” that were brought up, that I failed to fulfill. Unfortunately, Tim wanted changes to be done, which caused us to be behind schedule. We were installing and modifying a store for Tim called OsCommerce. Which Tim agreed upon. After a week of editing Tim’s OsCommerce based store and nearly completing it, Tim was no longer interested in a separate store and chooses to go with a simple availability page added to his site. After working on and removing Tim’s OsCommerce based store, and switching to a different route and play catch up the due date could not be met. Tim claimed in his post that he was no longer interested in OsCommerce as customers would have to put their credit card information into a “new breeders website”, but it was explained to him before hand that payment was handled through PayPal checkout, so no credit card information would be exchanging through his hands.

Best screen shot we have showing the files and mod-dates for the shopping cart-
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Kaa22/oscommerce.jpg

We began uploading multiple files and Photoshop documents to Tim’s server. These uploads led to Aaron Paulmer being able to duplicate my website design, the banner I had made was one of those files. If you need proof on the following uploads, please look back on Tim’s business card, the Pied ball python had a black shading that lightly rounded and draped upon the edge of the snake, but the watermarks Tim had begun to use didn’t have this shading and were crisp and clean which were the Photoshop files we had uploaded due to the $350 agreement for him to receive partial copyright of the Pied picture along with his entire site.

We came to the point of almost uploading the entire site and being done. We then asked Tim for payment, or at least 50% of it at that time. Tim told us, that at that time he didn’t have money for the payment, and that he would have to check with his wife about things. I explained to him that until we get paid at least half of the asking price that we cannot upload the rest of his site, which is why we put up the “Site under Construction” page. We felt that we just couldn’t hand over our entire product without something to show for it.

A few days later it is impossible for me to reach Tim. He had informed me that he was going to be attending the NARBC show on November 7-8th of 2009, and that he had problems with his phone losing service in some areas. I left him a voice message because I couldn’t reach him. Monday the 9th of that November rolls around and I still cannot reach him. I had two phone numbers to reach him at, his cell phone and house number. So all I could do was continue to try and call and leave messages. I continue to try and reach him by phone until November 12th when my wife woke me up showing me our website design and graphics had been ripped off and that there as a thread made by Tim praising Aaron Paulmer for being such a good “web site builder”, which is what led to the mess afterwards.

During our discussion over the phone to try and handle this, we had both agreed on an apology to my wife for attempting to steal her other variations of this artwork, and pull what he had done, as she felt humiliated after this ordeal. He agreed yet, in his post he claimed he doesn’t understand what the apology was for. While on the phone Tim explained that he wanted full copyright of the photo so there was to be no problems between us, now or later in the future. It was $500 for full copyright. After giving Tim the full copyright price, Tim’s attitude changed and stated over the phone on more than one occasion that he was going to do whatever he wanted with the image, as Tim felt there won’t be a lawyer or firm that would take up this case as it involved “so little money”.

When we confronted Tim about stealing the graphics and the design of the website, he threatened us through a Private Message on a forum. He stated pretty much, that he either gets to keep the website I originally designed and graphics according to his terms and what he wants (There was no median found), or he will slander us for as long as he can. We have a screen shot of this Private Message below.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Kaa22/privatemessage.jpg

After attempting a resolution it was obvious that neither party was going to agree upon something. We felt the only thing we could do, would be to go to a lawyer, and by posting our side before such would be considered antagonizing, so that is why we walked away. Here is our reply on the topic, along with various screenshots.

We apologize for the long overdue reply, but we just felt it was in our best interest to hold off.

-Andrew & Ashley

Best of luck on this Tim. He was supposed to help me on my site... but we never got that far. I ended up getting some help from someone else.... From the sounds of it... its a good thing I did.

As I've said Kevin, My phone, a Samsung M520, died on me, so Sprint replaced it. I lost all of my numbers, and I didn't have yours again, didn't have a way to get a hold of you, and I was in the process of going through a large move. I did apologize, and my offer is still on the table to help.

Forcing a client to pay for usage of a logo each time they need it is bad business. A quality, legit design firm will not do that. I have been working in the graphic and web field for five years...No company I have worked for (including AT&T) has ever operated in that manner (nor do I run my own business in that way). They are misusing copyright law. It was never intended to be in reference to commissioned work.

Any legit company will provide a detailed proposal and contract before a project commences. Do not be fooled by cheap prices. In the end, you get what you pay for. Protect yourself. Do your research! Ask questions!

In reference to logo design in particular...Make sure you are getting original vector logo files (AI or EPS) from whomever you use. A vector logo will scale to any size, a rasterized logo will not without loss of quality. A rasterized logo is useless for most people because they won't be able to enlarge it for show banners, business cards, billboards, etc.

In reference to website design (in particular programming), make sure they plan to program your website correctly. Tables are not the correct way to program a website! Make sure the site validates. Make sure it works in IE6, IE7, IE8 and FF3. Make sure it works effectively in screen resolutions from 1024w to 1680w. Test, test, test!

Sorry for my rant, but I hate seeing fly by night "design firms" that rip people off and/or provide a subpar end product.

He commissioned us to do a business card. That's it. No actual logo in particular. That's my wife's artwork. We believed we were helping out a friend... otherwise, we wouldn't have given him such a cheap price. This is the first time I've been burned like this... so live and let live. Friend or not, a contract is in order.

We don't use tables for our layout, but rather, an external .css stylesheet and div tags. Our sites validate, etc. We test them in as many browsers as we can including google chrome, firefox, IE6+, opera, and safari. There's no fly by night anything here...

 

[Kaa22]

As for this thread on the BOI... This is our one and only post here on this topic. We do not post here, and do not really frequent this forum, other than to view classifieds. We simply felt a need to get our side out. There is the full story.

 

[Royal Morphz]

When we confronted Tim about stealing the graphics and the design of the website, he threatened us through a Private Message on a forum. He stated pretty much, that he either gets to keep the website I originally designed and graphics according to his terms and what he wants (There was no median found), or he will slander us for as long as he can. We have a screen shot of this Private Message below.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...atemessage.jpg

I Agree with Andrew on his whole post. It is as accurate as I could portray myself. Most if not all or our communication was done through text,phone, and instant messenger(which I learn can't be done). The above quote is all I would like to counter on, I said I could continue being a D!ck but it would be better if we worked it out between us. We could not work it out so as a direct result of this thread a web and logo designer contacted me about doing a different snake design since that was what the big part of our parting ways in the first place.

Now After re reading my new logo thread I can see where it could be construed as me bringing up Andrew and Ashley but that was not my intentions. I was very happy with the logo Ashley and Andrew designed. I fought trying to keep it but in the end there was no way so I changed it. I took blame for not informing Aaron I didn't own the RM logo, because I in fact thought I did.

Let me say again I agree with Andrews whole post it is how I would post it if I was as articulate. I never once said a bad word to or about either Ashley or Andrew after this exploded. I didn't see it as me winning or anything. I saw it as "well there goes what I have been building my business on,what should I do now".

Let me say this I was happy with every bit of the work I got from Ashley and Andrew. I think for almost a whole year it was worth the $100 I paid for it. If I had it to do again I would have asked for the price to own everything, but isn't that the saying, Lessons Learned.

Here's That apology for Ashley I am sorry I ever put up that partial drawing of the unfinished logo you were making for me. It was done in bad taste and was uncalled for.

 

[Kaa22]

One more post...

This was to get our side of the story out, rather than one persons involvement with the incident. We felt this has hurt our reputation long enough, without our side of the story being told, for people to make their own judgment. This wasn't brought up by Tim's logo post.