Bigfooter files Copyright Lawsuit

Drewbot

Philosopher
Drewbot
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
7,719
This is over the Bigfoot-back photo that Melissa put out there last year. The guy Poling, went on Youtube and showed the photo. Melissa claimed it was copyrighted, and threatened legal action. Well evidently she has filed the lawsuit, and is demanding a jury trial.

http://thebigfooteryenquirer.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/hovey-sues-poling/

http://thebigfooteryenquirer.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/hovey-v-poling-initial-filing-by-plaintiff/


Here is a link to a blog with the photo on it.
http://weirdthings.com/2012/02/new-trail-cam-bigfoot-picture-released/

Note: in the lawsuit it looks like Melissa claims the personal copyright, but the photo says 'copyright American Bigfoot Society' on it.
 
And I don't think she has legal rights to the photo since she didn't take it.

I'd love to see that trial televised!!!

Can you imagine the looks on her attorney's face when she explains what she wants to do.
 
Last edited:
I see evidence of the photo being 'shopped - middle of back, to the left of the spine.
 
Where are the other photos? If I was close enough to a Bigfoot to take that clear of a shot, it wouldn't be the only one. Just curious.


GT/CS said:
Oh, I think someone has a real problem!
Click to expand...

True. Not one the courts can fix, though. :p
 
Last edited:
Kind of interesting how the foliage in the background is in crystal-clear focus and yet the "bigfoot" in the foreground is kind of blurry. I'm sure there are plenty of excuses reasons for that though.
 
Apology said:
Kind of interesting how the foliage in the background is in crystal-clear focus and yet the "bigfoot" in the foreground is kind of blurry. I'm sure there are plenty of excuses reasons for that though.
Click to expand...

Not seeing it. Both show some JPEG artifacting but thats about it.
 
My trail cams tend to over-expose subjects really close to the lens, and have fixed focus lenses that wouldn't record the hair as sharply as that. The hair in this photo seems as sharp as background.

The shadows in the foliage on the left seem to be above the leaves casting them, meaning the light source is below the lens height, while those on the right are below the leaves casting them, meaning the light source is above the lens height. Trail-cams usually have only one light.

All in all I don't think this is a simple trail-cam photograph, so it is not what it is claimed to be. Whether a court would consider that relevant to the case is another matter.
 
I can confirm that the photo was not taken by a trailcam. It's apparently one of many photos that were taken manually by some guy who contacted Melissa Hovey saying a bunch of weird stuff. Several experts have examined the photo and I remember that one of them said that it's a man who glued hair to himself, which I kinda find hard to believe. I think Bill Munns looked at it as well and he couldn't reach any conclusion on it.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
I can confirm that the photo was not taken by a trailcam. It's apparently one of many photos that were taken manually by some guy who contacted Melissa Hovey saying a bunch of weird stuff. Several experts have examined the photo and I remember that one of them said that it's a man who glued hair to himself, which I kinda find hard to believe. I think Bill Munns looked at it as well and he couldn't reach any conclusion on it.
Click to expand...

Experts at what? Identifying non existent Bigfeet?
 
OntarioSquatch said:
I can confirm that the photo was not taken by a trailcam. It's apparently one of many photos that were taken manually by some guy who contacted Melissa Hovey saying a bunch of weird stuff. Several experts have examined the photo and I remember that one of them said that it's a man who glued hair to himself, which I kinda find hard to believe. I think Bill Munns looked at it as well and he couldn't reach any conclusion on it.
Click to expand...

Have a look at the photoshopped part of the back as per previous post - it's not jpeg smearing - it strongly resembles brushing in using the blur tool to conceal a tape or bandage line under the hair.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Wouldn't you have to produce the original image and possibly the camera in such a lawsuit?
Click to expand...

Depends on whether the photographer transferred the rights to her or not. But she'd have to present proof of that, I'm sure.
 
...I have no interest at all in Big Foot but I am a photographer and am interested in related copyright laws so when this thread popped onto my front page I just had to check it out.

But to be honest after reading the links in the OP and a few of the other links I don't have a clue what is going on. The whole thing reads like a soap opera and I've come in three episodes before the end. I don't know any of the actors and there are rivalries and sub plots hinted throughout the episode but I can't seem to hang anything together. And the more I try to figure things out: the more my eyes start to bleed. So was wondering if someone could help out and post a cliff notes version, or even a direct link to the lawsuit? Open spoilers welcome.
 
banquetbear said:
...I have no interest at all in Big Foot but I am a photographer and am interested in related copyright laws so when this thread popped onto my front page I just had to check it out.

But to be honest after reading the links in the OP and a few of the other links I don't have a clue what is going on. The whole thing reads like a soap opera and I've come in three episodes before the end. I don't know any of the actors and there are rivalries and sub plots hinted throughout the episode but I can't seem to hang anything together. And the more I try to figure things out: the more my eyes start to bleed. So was wondering if someone could help out and post a cliff notes version, or even a direct link to the lawsuit? Open spoilers welcome.
Click to expand...

I found it all confusing, too.

From what I gather, Hovey was sent a series of photos, and given permission by the photog to post one on her blog. She filed a copyright for that photo under American Bigfoot Society, and added a watermark to that effect. Poser took it and published it on his own website. Now, she's suing him under her own name for copyright infringement.

It doesn't make sense.
 
Also, Poling changed the water mark to his name, and on his Youtube video, said he had as much right to copyright it as her or something like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom