Dept of Justice Uses Photo Of Mine Without Permission

Carrigman

Cheeky feckers!

http://carrigman.blogspot.com/2011/07/dept-of-justice-uses-photo-of-mine.html

Regards,

John

Paulw

Ca-ching!!!!

Get a solicitor straight away. Sounds like you may have a nice cheque coming to you now.

leche solara

I thought I recognised the picture on the RTE news, and wondered why they needed such a picture (or any picture for that matter) on the cover of a serious tome such as the Cloyne Report. Anyway its a lovely picture and any publicity is good publicity as they say.

sineadw

I still can't believe they did this. You'd think the Dept. of Justice would have a grasp of the law.. :rolleyes:

As paul said, Ca Ching! Send them a nice big fat invoice.

.Longshanks.

How the hell did such a high profile report get published without every single item in it being double double checked???
*facepalm*

But yeah....ca-ching! I know somebody who got £2k stg from the daily mail in the UK after the published (robbed & removed the watermark) from one of his flickr images.

Think big €€€'s!

Paulw

leche solara wrote: »

any publicity is good publicity as they say.

Publicity doesn't equate to money. All the publicity in the world won't buy you a new camera. I'll take hard cash any day of the week.

PCPhoto

to echo pauls comment ....

Get thee to a solicitor !! (post haste)..... we'll all have to chip in and create an advert ... "copyright theft is still theft !!"

DougL

If I was asked for a photo for the cover of such a report, I'd probably let them use it. However, the fact they didn't even ask permission is unacceptable! Lawyer up!

sineadw

@Doug - you can be damn sure there was a large budget for it, and everyone who contributed professionally was well paid.

DougL

sineadw wrote: »

@Doug - you can be damn sure there was a large budget for it, and everyone who contributed professionally was well paid.

Good point!

EyeBlinks

Where's the justice in that .

Seriously, send them a letter and nice big invoice and threaten a solicitor. I'd imagime they'd pay pretty rapid.

jpb1974

Tell them that for an additional €1,000 (on top of your usage charge) you'll keep the scandal under wraps instead of immediately announcing it to the world via the web.

Doh...

sineadw

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Where's the justice in that .

Seriously, send them a letter and nice big invoice and threaten a solicitor. I'd imagime they'd pay pretty rapid.

Rapid? I think not http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1016723.shtml They'll definitely pay though. In this case I'd be going to a solicitor for advice. I wonder if there's an arts organisation that gives legal advice? If not then there really should be. You could try VAI? http://visualartists.ie/

i5kra

Very shoddy work on the part of the Dept Justice. Cutting corners as always - some poor CO under pressure to do the finishing touches to the report so they swiped stuff off the net thinking that nobody would notice.

It does not inspire confidence in their ability to deal with serious issues if they are prepared to go around stealing material off the internet and using it in their publications. Particularly in the case of a report that was going to be in the public eye - if it was the annual accounts of the traffic wardens tea fund (or whatever) then you could have missed it. But this was going to be seen by a lot of people.

I've had dealings with the Dept Justice in the past (used to be a civil servant in Dept Transport) and trying to talk to the right person was often a problem. Emails to the main contact address just disappeared into a black hole. They like old fashioned paper letters - that way they can shuffle the bits of paper back and forth from desk to desk until the right person gets it.

Seriously my advice is to send them a letter and keep copies of everything you send them - paper trails are always good in situations like this.

See how they respond and then talk to a solicitor if they try to fob you off.

They will have to respond in a case like this where its so clear cut.

Carrigman

Many thanks for the advice, folks. I have in fact received an email reply from the DoJ telling me the matter is being investigated. I'll keep you posted.

Regards,

John

.Longshanks.

getting paid > investigation

PCPhoto

remember to keep a screenshot - an apology is not really sufficient in my view, your copyright has been breached - a member of the Dept of Justice broke the law and someone needs to be punished and you should be remunerated.

Tactical

Copyright will have to be proved, that shouldn't be a problem i.e. original shot.

Secondly, in relation to usage, different usage typically attracts different costs. i.e. print usage in one country attracts one rate. Print and electronic usage in one country attracts a different rate. Print usage worldwide attracts a different rate. Print and electronic usage worldwide attracts a different rate.

Best of luck with the outcome.

Only one other thing to bear in mind, any government department usually looks for a certificate of tax clearance before relasing funds. Not a big deal to get, just a form to fill in and submit to revenue. Tax clearance certificate sent by post to you after processing.

magicbastarder

where the hell did they get the photograph? that looks like a bad scan from a print (not the 'creasing' on the right) rather than having been lifted from your flickr feed.

artyeva

magicbastarder wrote: »

where the hell did they get the photograph? that looks like a bad scan from a print (not the 'creasing' on the right) rather than having been lifted from your flickr feed.

was just gonna say that - the creasing is really obvious!

pawrick

Pictures may have been supplied by the graphic design/printers - so maybe a case to be had with them also...if the dept didn't design/print it in house or supply it's own.

minttea

It's interesting to read DOJs own copyright and disclaimer notice..

"All of the information featured on our website is the copyright of the Department of Justice and Law Reform unless otherwise indicated"

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Copyright_and_disclaimer
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Re-use_of_public_sector_information

minttea

Doing a Google search for site:justice.ie cover filetype: pdf

I found this report.. similar style cover, I wonder if the photographer was credited for this picture?

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Cover%20Appendices.pdf/Files/Cover%20Appendices.pdf


[Edit]
Actually never mind.. looks like they paid for that one, found it on iStock!
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4741131-ha-penny-bridge-dublin-at-dawn.php

magicbastarder

they really need to get a good graphic designer. that looks like it was put together on word 95.

aisog

Just came across this thread, but the cheek of them! dying to know how this one pans out!

sineadw

Is the link to the report online down for everyone else??

magicbastarder

HTTP Web Server: Lotus Notes Exception - Entry not found in index

challengemaster

Tactical wrote: »

Secondly, in relation to usage, different usage typically attracts different costs. i.e. print usage in one country attracts one rate. Print and electronic usage in one country attracts a different rate. Print usage worldwide attracts a different rate. Print and electronic usage worldwide attracts a different rate.

Which would be the case if you were quoting them before they had actually taken the image without asking.

Now, though - fleece the bastids.

Only one other thing to bear in mind, any government department usually looks for a certificate of tax clearance before relasing funds. Not a big deal to get, just a form to fill in and submit to revenue. Tax clearance certificate sent by post to you after processing.

Again, this stands true in the case of employing someone to do work - when they've actively broken copyright law, there's no reason why this should apply

sineadw

challengemaster wrote: »

Again, this stands true in the case of employing someone to do work - when they've actively broken copyright law, there's no reason why this should apply

Nope - they won't give you a penny without one, regardless. I had to get one for a teaching grant a while back. No biggie..

And yeah- they've pulled all online copies of the cover. Still a small one on rte.

challengemaster

sineadw wrote: »

Nope - they won't give you a penny without one, regardless. I had to get one for a teaching grant a while back. No biggie..

And yeah- they've pulled all online copies of the cover. Still a small one on rte.

My point being, this isn't like a normal form of payment for work done - they stole something, the victim in the situation shouldn't have to jump through any loopholes to get compensated. It's actually ridiculous to even think that way about it

ScumLord

Carrigman wrote: »

Many thanks for the advice, folks. I have in fact received an email reply from the DoJ telling me the matter is being investigated. I'll keep you posted.

Regards,

John

Expect a reply in 1 to 12 years.

I think you should try to come to a resolution with them without a solicitor, this is a state body after all they'll be paying you with your own taxes. The less solicitors get involved the better, although I'm sure the states solicitors have the government raped around their fingers so much so that they'd make them fight this despite there being no hope of them winning just to to extort more money from the stupid state.

EyeBlinks

ScumLord wrote: »

Expect a reply in 1 to 12 years.

I think you should try to come to a resolution with them without a solicitor, this is a state body after all they'll be paying you with your own taxes. The less solicitors get involved the better, although I'm sure the states solicitors have the government raped around their fingers so much so that they'd make them fight this despite there being no hope of them winning just to to extort more money from the stupid state.

I agree, let the solicitors at it as a last resort.

I disagree though that it will drag on. I reckon the embarassment factor will result in an early resolution.

sineadw

@challengemaster its ridiculous, granted, but no govt department will make *any* type of payment without one now. It has nothing to do with whether you've done work for payment or not. It's a tax issue.

Tin Foil Hat

Breakingnews.ie have used it as well.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2011/0714/ireland/papal-nuncio-distressed-by-cloyne-report-findings-512778.html

.Longshanks.

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Breakingnews.ie have used it as well.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2011/0714/ireland/papal-nuncio-distressed-by-cloyne-report-findings-512778.html

Can you invoice the website as well?
(half serious question)

Tin Foil Hat

sineadw wrote: »

@challengemaster its ridiculous, granted, but no govt department will make *any* type of payment without one now. It has nothing to do with whether you've done work for payment or not. It's a tax issue.

I don't buy this at all. They stole the mans work and they will have to cough up regardless. There is not a court in the country that will say otherwise.
He will probably need to declare the payment to the revenue afterwards, but that's a different matter.

Tin Foil Hat

kev_Longshanks100 wrote: »

Can you invoice the website as well?
(half serious question)

I don't see why not, to be honest.

ScumLord

EyeBlinks wrote: »

I disagree though that it will drag on. I reckon the embarassment factor will result in an early resolution.

It will, dragging out everything is solicitors over billing practice 101. They have no interest in resolution, they have no shame, they're only out to make money.

Paulw

kev_Longshanks100 wrote: »

Can you invoice the website as well?
(half serious question)

Yes, of course you can.

FreeAnd..

Cool - now you're famous

http://www.thejournal.ie/cloyne-report-front-page-photo-used-without-permission-177066-Jul2011/

Dermo

FreeAnd.. wrote: »

Cool - now you're famous

http://www.thejournal.ie/cloyne-report-front-page-photo-used-without-permission-177066-Jul2011/

Did they ask for permission? You should bill them too

FreeAnd..

Dermo wrote: »

Did they ask for permission? You should bill them too

exactly...bill them all

challengemaster

Lol, quite clearly the journo reporter is a boardsie...

Jagle

im in total favour of taking the department for as much as you can, god forbid if it was they other way around, or you owed them money they wouldnt be long in calling around for it. fleece em for every penny you can get out of them, id defo lawyer up before they do

challengemaster

Jagle wrote: »

im in total favour of taking the department for as much as you can, god forbid if it was they other way around, or you owed them money they wouldnt be long in calling around for it. fleece em for every penny you can get out of them, id defo lawyer up before they do

They can lawyer up all they want, there's nothing a lawyer can do for them now. It's a clear cut case

Jagle

challengemaster wrote: »

They can lawyer up all they want, there's nothing a lawyer can do for them now. It's a clear cut case

indeed but i ment to avoid all the bs and passing the buck that they will do.

Greenmachine

Take it to Europe. How can the case be judged by the institution responsible for the offence.

smelltheglove

Love it when things like this happen, not the copyright theft but when the example of copyright theft can be so large, I mean the DoJ what the hell were they thinking......?

Just remember your charge for unauthorised print, tv and web use internationally can be pretty much whatever you like and also, those other sites using your image have to pay you also, and yes they should too get an unauthorised use charge!

preilly79

smelltheglove wrote: »

... those other sites using your image have to pay you also, and yes they should too get an unauthorised use charge!

Isn't that considered fair use? i.e. editorial, reporting etc?

i5kra

The blame game will be going on in the Dept now to cover people's a$$es for the very obvious screw up. Interesting that they pulled your image off already. You'd be surprised how stupid big organisations can be in dealing with these things - they might just hope you'll go away. From their perspective, if you go away then the problem goes away.

I wouldn't worry about the tax clearance issue - they are clearly in the wrong and any payment offered to you in payment for the illegal and unlicensed use of your image would be in compensation for the willful misuse of your property by the state. They may try to fob you off saying they can't pay you because of tax clearance issues but stand your ground - they are in the wrong here.

Keep the paper trail and print off everything. Take notes of any phone calls you might have including the date, time and person you spoke to.

mikemac

Probably just a lowly clerical officer frazzled under pressure and grabbed it. Possibly didn't even know anything about copyright law.

But now their executive officer is getting blamed for not supervising and it goes up the chain and the blame game begins

Expect a resolution in 6-12 months OP while this is getting sorted out

But yeah, keep a paper trail