a national newspaper used a photo of mine without permission, what can i do

Eric Cartman

i assume i can do something, for the moment im going to leave out some details, a national newspaper used a photo of mine without asking, it was published on my flickr and marked "all rights reserved" , it was used to accompany an article.

i assume there not allowed to just pull photos off flickr like that without asking ?

any reccomendations on what i should do, calling the paper tomorrow to see what the story is

Fajitas!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055194051&highlight=paper+copyright
that thread may be of some help to you

whyulittle

Just to update that thread, they were sent a solicitors letter but I am still waiting on their reply.

Oriel

Demand payment, or threaten legal action.

Covey

Simply send them an invoice with reference to the published date and page no. That should suffice.

janmc

Oriel wrote: »

Demand payment, or threaten legal action.

Simply send them an invoice with reference to the published date and page no. That should suffice.

If I were you, I'd do a mixture of these. Send a polite but firm letter and cc your solicitor, marking it clearly as cc'd. They'd be more likely to take it seriously then.

Or get the name of the editor for the section that your photo appeared in, and contact them directly. It might have been a mistake with some young employee not realising.

I should probably add that I am not a lawyer!

City-Exile

Any paper that has used my stuff, I've simply sent them an invoice, detailing the date the image was used, the publication, page, context & a price.
I've never had a problem.
If they're paying you by cheque, expect it to take around 6 weeks.
I'm setup for electronic bank transfers with many papers now.

DON'T charge V.A.T. unless you're registered!

I don't know why people are so defensive in their attutide to the national press. It's great exposure & might open some new doors.

Yerac

City-Exile wrote: »

I don't know why people are so defensive in their attutide to the national press. It's great exposure & might open some new doors.

The reason why is because most of these papers are chancing their arms (to put it very politely) and hoping to get away with a "free pic". No doubt some will try to run the line that "It's great exposure" but that is complete rubbish and insulting to anyone who has ever tried to earn a penny from photography.

Until the papers get hit with massive bills for these illegally used photos they will continue to act like they do.

magicbastarder

City-Exile wrote: »

I don't know why people are so defensive in their attutide to the national press. It's great exposure & might open some new doors.

because it's exceedingly bad manners as well as being against the law?

Rojo

I wanna see the photo!!!

City-Exile

This is business! If people want to go around being offended, then don't post your pictures on the Internet.

Paulw

City-Exile wrote: »

This is business! If people want to go around being offended, then don't post your pictures on the Internet.

I totally disagree. We (photographers) should have every right to share our photos online, without people (and papers) stealing out images. What they are doing is illegal. Pure and simple.

You could use the same logic for shop lifters - don't put goods on display if you don't want people to rob them.

magicbastarder

one would have hoped a poxy newspaper would know about copyright law.
though it's probably the indo, their journalists are known to indulge in plagiarism (cf. the lifting of blogs).

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

decsramble

Yerac wrote: »

The reason why is because most of these papers are chancing their arms (to put it very politely) and hoping to get away with a "free pic". No doubt some will try to run the line that "It's great exposure" but that is complete rubbish and insulting to anyone who has ever tried to earn a penny from photography.

Exactly and I'd say if we ever found out how often they get away with it we'd be shocked. Odds are there are photos published every day without the photographer ever spotting them. It would be a full time job reading every newspaper looking for ripped off photos.

shepthedog

decsramble wrote: »

Exactly and I'd say if we ever found out how often they get away with it we'd be shocked. Odds are there are photos published every day without the photographer ever spotting them. It would be a full time job reading every newspaper looking for ripped off photos.

I would have to agree with decsramble, I wonder how many pictures are being published everyday without people knowing. Its impossible to read every newspaper and the chances of you looking at the one that may contain you pic is slim.. It seems to be happening all the time. I would call the newspaper first, ask to speak to pictures editor and go from there. Be reasonable first and if that fails then take further action.
I know its exposure for your pictures but its blatantly being ripped off. He took the photo and should be compensated if the paper thinks fit to print..
As someone mentioned, blogs are being copied also but yet this is considered a worse offense? Both are contain a persons work and effort and neither should be robbed.
Good luck with this.

City-Exile

Make a meal of this, if that's what you want, but I still think you'd be far better off just billing them.

Paulw, with regard to shoplifting, why do you think many CD/DVD/Video Game cases empty? You can view the box, but robbing it would be worthless.

Same applies to images. Low res. to allow people to view.
High res. available to those interested in purchasing.

Paulw

City-Exile wrote: »

Same applies to images. Low res. to allow people to view.
High res. available to those interested in purchasing.

But, define low res for viewing? Paper print images are much smaller/lower quality than any you'd have online, surely?

My public view images on FlickR are all low res, while my friends can see the high res images.

Oriel

City-Exile wrote: »

This is business! If people want to go around being offended, then don't post your pictures on the Internet.

Absolute Bollocks. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean that they can use your photo to help to sell a paper and make them money.
They broke the law, they should be punished.

heliguy

what kind of money are talking about? Is there an industry standard rate or does it depend on the image? If so whats the range?

Ricky91t

Look think of it this way if you dont wanna do anything more about this email them and tell them you want a full page of your photos and website links or you'll take legal action even ask for the pics to be in there for 2 weeks.
You must feel slighty happy that out of the millions of photos on flickr they chos your photo

magicbastarder

ricky91t wrote: »

Look think of it this way if you dont wanna do anything more about this email them and tell them you want a full page of your photos and website links or you'll take legal action even ask for the pics to be in there for 2 weeks.

and they'll dismiss you as a crank.

Covey

ricky91t wrote: »

tell them you want a full page of your photos and website links or you'll take legal action even ask for the pics to be in there for 2 weeks.

As if thats going to happen

Be realistic, send them an invoice (€10-50) depending on size, or ask them for a rate card or forget about it and write it down to experience.

Ricky91t

If they can chance their arm
Im sure you can do the same

thedarkroom

I agree with Covey, just send them an invoice. They were wrong and they know it but do you want to punish them or establish yourself as some one who can produce the goods and preform in a professional manner. Sure, let them know you are not a pushover, an invoice will establish that you expect to be treated in a professional manner and should send out the message that you are available for commissions but not to be ripped-off.
A short note that you expect to be consulted before your photographs are lifted fom another source would do no harm as there could be issues with model release but if you establish a professional approach then it might be noted for future. If you set out on a 'punishment route' then word will spread and you will very likely be shunned by all potential publishers. It is certainly no harm to inform them that lifting from a web page is unacceptable but they already know this. They will have been taught this in Journalism school and informed of issues on copyright an plagiarism. When they lift images they are being smart about it and taking for advantageof the knowledge that the general public might know about copyright or might be intimidated by a large corporation and not pursue the matter.
I agree with Covey, send the invoice. Let us know how you get on.

lostexpectation

tell em to ask first

would the new press complaints body deal with this?

AnCatDubh

don't know the answer to this one but as i read the thread i wonder from the legal perspective, would the sending of an invoice prejudice an action that you may wish to take? if it did, then perhaps you'd be better with initial dialogue which wouldn't prejudice any future action.

sheesh

Paulw wrote: »

But, define low res for viewing? Paper print images are much smaller/lower quality than any you'd have online, surely?

My public view images on FlickR are all low res, while my friends can see the high res images.

even though the quality looks bad in papers they would probably have to be able to get them to 300 dpi to print them.

I think a friendly phone call is the first port of call then email then solicitor. keep it cheap and cheerful if you can. probably what happened is that the person that got the pic probably just put search terms into google or yahoo and took it. the person that decided to use the pic probably didn't even know that it was taken from flickr. As someone said there is no need to feel angry about it just contact them and get your money.

thedarkroom

I know this is running a bit late in relation to the previous post but a word of caution. One of my students was in a similar position recently and he invoiced and received payment for the photograph from a tabloid (not saying that the broadsheets would act differently in similar circumstances) of, I think, about €35. Not a whole lot for the effort but a week and a half later he received a letter from the Revenue office wanting to meet him to discuss/assess his income from such earnings. While the letter wasn't threatening or menacing in its tone it still was a shock.
I haven't heard of the outcome since then but I told him to go tell them that he is a student on social welfare and that it was a one-off as he is full time in college. This all sounds a bit extreme and I presume it went alright for the student but don't be surprised if the 'client' behaves like an ar****le if you pursue for what you are entitled to and they are reluctant.

Paulw

thedarkroom wrote: »

I know this is running a bit late in relation to the previous post but a word of caution. One of my students was in a similar position recently and he invoiced and received payment for the photograph from a tabloid (not saying that the broadsheets would act differently in similar circumstances) of, I think, about €35. Not a whole lot for the effort but a week and a half later he received a letter from the Revenue office wanting to meet him to discuss/assess his income from such earnings. While the letter wasn't threatening or menacing in its tone it still was a shock.

It's nothing to do with the paper. They have to declare who they make payments to, so any payment from a paper to a photographer must be documented. That's why there is need for an invoice, for a full paper trail.

Any earnings from photography must be declared as income, and so is liable for tax. You must keep records of all transactions, for your own safety.

That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Jack Ryan

Paulw wrote: »

It's nothing to do with the paper. They have to declare who they make payments to, so any payment from a paper to a photographer must be documented. That's why there is need for an invoice, for a full paper trail.

.............

They what?

the only reason the Revenue would know about a €35 payment to a photographer would be if the paper reported him/her as being self employed and unregistered

Any paper I'm aware of would have a daily petty cash spend in excess of €35


having said that, if you do earn money from photography then it is income and liable to Income Tax, then again your camera becomes a business asset and becomes eligble for capital allowances and you are also able to claim all business expenses against this income, which if it results in a Case I loss will allow your loss to be set against your other income and get you a tax refund

Paulw

Jack Ryan wrote: »

the only reason the Revenue would know about a €35 payment to a photographer would be if the paper reported him/her as being self employed and unregistered

Any paper I'm aware of would have a daily petty cash spend in excess of €35

I haven't yet heard of a photographer being paid by cash. Normally it's a cheque or EFT. When submitting your invoice to them, they would then file that as a payment.

I still can't see what the hype is about.

Jack Ryan

Paulw wrote: »

I haven't yet heard of a photographer being paid by cash. Normally it's a cheque or EFT. When submitting your invoice to them, they would then file that as a payment.

I still can't see what the hype is about.

The revenue would not pick up a €35 payment, the payment had to be notified to them

no Revenue auditor would pick up a one time payment for that small amount

brayblue24

I don't want to hijack your thread but I discovered last week the same thing has happened to me. There I was reading my local free paper, turned the page and lo and behold there is a photo I took 4 years ago. What's even more annoying is that I never put it on the likes of flickr etc. and never even offered it for sale. The only place, to my knowledge, it was ever published was the RTE website, as it was a runner up in their weather competition in 2004.

Anyhoo, after taking advice from a photographer friend, I contacted the paper last Tuesday on the pretext of wanting to buy the photo. The girl said she would come back to me that day with the source of the photo-she didn't. I rang again the next day and told her the truth-she said she'd get back to me-she didn't (sorry if this sounds like "That's Life"). No further contact by Friday so I emailed the CEO. Still no acknowledgement. As I said to the girl I spoke to I have never made a profit from my hobby nor have I tried to so I'm certainly not letting somebody else do so and for what it's worth I was nothing if not polite to her at all times.

Rant over so what next? Solicitor or Small Claims Court?

bernard0368

Jack Ryan wrote: »

The revenue would not pick up a €35 payment, the payment had to be notified to them

Those nice tabloid people wouldnt stoop so low

MementoMori

Why would photographers not send an invoice of €500 if a picture of theirs is used by the press without their authorisation?

It would stop the press doing this.

The photographer can claim this is what they would have charged if the paper had got in touch with them.

If they don't pay then take them to the small claims court.

delly

brayblue24 wrote: »

I don't want to hijack your thread but I discovered last week the same thing has happened to me. There I was reading my local free paper, turned the page and lo and behold there is a photo I took 4 years ago. What's even more annoying is that I never put it on the likes of flickr etc. and never even offered it for sale. The only place, to my knowledge, it was ever published was the RTE website, as it was a runner up in their weather competition in 2004.

I would take a guess, but most of those type of competitions state in the rules that you relinquish your rights over the picture and that the promoters can do with the picture what they want. If thats the case, then I don't think you'll be able to do much about it.

Anouilh

brayblue24 wrote: »

The only place, to my knowledge, it was ever published was the RTE website, as it was a runner up in their weather competition in 2004.
...
Solicitor or Small Claims Court?

Is it possible that RTE had some connection with the way your photo was used?

I have an account with h2g2 which is a community linked to the BBC. I rarely upload photos there, as the licence involves handing over quite a few rights, including something about the fact that my work can even be used on technologies that do not yet exist.

Vanity publishing is thriving on the basis that amateurs can have their work showcased for "free".

A photo expert recently told me that many professionals are going back to film in order to have something tangible for copyright purposes.

Digital has brought so many changes to work practices in every field. Writers are now very easily plagiarised and it's difficult to keep track of those who use others work for free.

Putting a great watermark on a photo might help...
but it won't get it published on national TV.

sheesh

how much can you charge if they use your photo? can you charge more if they do it with out permission?

Also what if you have spent alot of time taking and processing the photo can you charge them for your time?

Anouilh

sheesh wrote: »

how much can you charge if they use your photo? can you charge more if they do it with out permission?

Also what if you have spent alot of time taking and processing the photo can you charge them for your time?

It's complicated.

First of all, your work is in competition, as an amateur, with professional work. This may influence how much you get paid.

In the past, newspapers would not touch amateur work, as it caused conflicts with the NUJ. I don't know what happens these days but that is why joining the Freelance Branch, if only as an associate member, which costs very little, will give you some protection. Also, other member will tell you what the going rates in different publication are. Also, keep in mind that a newspaper may have different budgets within the system, so you may get more or less, depending on the "value" of your work.

I once helped an acquaintance get a photo published in a national newspaper. I was not particularly listening to the mumblings on the subject, but when it came for the person to be paid it became a nightmare. After three months, or more, of me dropping little reminders from time to time, it was sorted out.

Never again...

Also, time means nothing in publishing.
If you choose to spend years on a project, you will still get the going rate. This is not the case if you are properly employed (again the NUJ should help here) with expenses, etc.,...

I was once told I would have to "work faster".
Since I was moving round at the speed of light,
I just laughed, counted my blessings and packed it in.

The temptation to get involved with travel publications is there, however, on the long finger.

Paulw

Anouilh wrote: »

In the past, newspapers would not touch amateur work, as it caused conflicts with the NUJ. I don't know what happens these days but that is why joining the Freelance Branch, if only as an associate member, which costs very little, will give you some protection.

Where can you find the cost of joining the NUJ? From what I can see from their website, the lowest bracket cost for joining is €202. That's not exactly very little.

Anouilh

Paulw wrote: »

Where can you find the cost of joining the NUJ? From what I can see from their website, the lowest bracket cost for joining is €202. That's not exactly very little.

I think you could get an associate member for less.
I can't find a link at the moment but will post when I do.

There is an open group in Facebook which anybody can join:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2310419644

Paulw

You can join ASJI and AIPS for a lot less. Also worth checking out, but those are for sports shooters.

kensutz

To join the NUJ if you're not a student, you have to be in full time employment as a photographer with a newspaper etc. Also you have to be earning a certain percentage of your annual income from photography.

mlelsc

Invoice them! They will take a few weeks to pay out...Don't charge V.A.T. unless you are registered for it.

Sick of newspapers doing this!

smelltheglove

Paulw wrote: »

Where can you find the cost of joining the NUJ? From what I can see from their website, the lowest bracket cost for joining is €202. That's not exactly very little.

Can I just ask, if anyone knows, by joining this do you actually get a press card that can help get you into gigs? if so I'm in.

OP before you do anything research the terms and conditions of your competition. Then get on to the relevantbody, i.e. the paper id they are out of order or the competition organisers if they failed to notify you of any other times your shot was published. If you are due money fair enough claim for it but I dont think they will pay over the odds especially if they are a free newspaper. If they fraudulently got the picture then invoice them, myself to p them off more, I would actually include a charge on the bill for printing without request or permission and make it like double the charge just for a print. Probably never get it but it would irritate them.

Anouilh

delly wrote: »

I would take a guess, but most of those type of competitions state in the rules that you relinquish your rights over the picture and that the promoters can do with the picture what they want. If thats the case, then I don't think you'll be able to do much about it.

What is this new fatalism?

This is genuine work that is being used, even if in an amateur way. If people allow their work to be handed round in editors' offices without any question about value and payment, all the hacks may as well retire.

There was a programme on consumer affairs on Monday night which left me laughing.

Not 'phoning back?

Nowadays you can be standing right beside a person who is supposed to be offering customer support and they will ignore you.

Here's hoping this is a passing fancy and that people will start communicating more clearly in the next year.

If the recession sets in we'll have nothing much else to do...

Also, this person is interesting on the subject of journastic rights and protocols:

http://donnachadelong.wordpress.com/about/

kensutz

smelltheglove wrote: »

Can I just ask, if anyone knows, by joining this do you actually get a press card that can help get you into gigs? if so I'm in.

A press card isn't an automatic entry into anything.

Anouilh

smelltheglove wrote: »

Can I just ask, if anyone knows, by joining this do you actually get a press card that can help get you into gigs?

You work up to getting a fully fledged press card.

I think that getting in Heaven is less complicated, but it's worth the effort.

Paulw

smelltheglove wrote: »

Can I just ask, if anyone knows, by joining this do you actually get a press card that can help get you into gigs? if so I'm in.

No, there is no magic card that can give you access to anything.

You still need to be approved by the venue/promoter/etc for any gig/event.

All the card is is an identification card, and your NUJ membership gives you certain union protections. It's not an access card or special magic pass.

Sorry to disappoint.

Anouilh

kensutz wrote: »

A press card isn't an automatic entry into anything.

But people take you more seriously and give you better positions, as you are, technically, at work.