Dept of Justice Uses Photo Of Mine Without Permission

Mav11

Folks, looking at the thread and the substance of that awful report, I'm disgusted that posters by and large can only think about making money out of it!!

-Chris-

Mav11 wrote: »

Folks, looking at the thread and the substance of that awful report, I'm disgusted that posters by and large can only think about making money out of it!!

Why shouldn't he be paid for his contribution to a professionally compiled report about a distasteful situation?

Jagle

Mav11 wrote: »

Folks, looking at the thread and the substance of that awful report, I'm disgusted that posters by and large can only think about making money out of it!!

funny, if you have a problem with that, look at the mpaa, riaa, or anyone else who has taken someone to court for copyright infringement.

how else is he to get whats owed to him, they didnt pay him for the right to use his image, now he can sue to get paid

Mav11

-Chris- wrote: »

Why shouldn't he be paid for his contribution to a professionally compiled report about a distasteful situation?

Because, I presume it is not the intention of the DOJ to profit from the image but to put the report into some sort of context and was put up there with the best of intentions.

-Chris-

Mav11 wrote: »

Because, I presume it is not the intention of the DOJ to profit from the image but to put the report into some sort of context and was put up there with the best of intentions.

Were the other people who contributed to the report compensated?

doomed

Same happened to me with those security videos on Crimeline. The Guards never asked if they could use the one of me....

Sorry have to go.

randylonghorn

Mav11 wrote: »

Folks, looking at the thread and the substance of that awful report, I'm disgusted that posters by and large can only think about making money out of it!!

In fairness, his property was stolen, even if I suspect the poster above has it right, and it was probably some young clerical officer without a clue about copyright law who thought anything on the net was fair game who grabbed it, and no-one thought to ask from where.

It happens too often though.

While I suspect that if it was a commercial publication people here would be even more up in arms, simply because it was profit-making AND because everyone working in such a publication should be very aware of copyright law, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be compensated for his work, and all the more so because it was used illegally and without his permission.

If they had asked, he might easily have chosen to donate or to do a deal, given the context and where it would be used.

But that's the point, it would be his *choice*, as he is the owner.

And looking for this (smaller) injustice to be put right will not impact in any way on the victims who are the subjects of that report, or their families.

Mav11 wrote: »

Because, I presume it is not the intention of the DOJ to profit from the image but to put the report into some sort of context and was put up there with the best of intentions.

No, they won't profit from the image.

Why such an image was needed for the cover of such a report is another, but probably tangential, question.

To me, it doesn't make much sense. A nice picture of a local bridge doesn't put the report into any kind of context. If anything, it seems like a naive attempt to "soften the blow", perhaps more evidence of a young / junior staff member responsible.

Mav11

sineadw wrote: »

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.

And from challengemaster "Now, though - fleece the bastids".

Very nice lads!!

challengemaster

Mav11 wrote: »

Because, I presume it is not the intention of the DOJ to profit from the image but to put the report into some sort of context and was put up there with the best of intentions.

Best intentions don't pay bills

The content of the report is irrelavent here - the law was broken, it's as simple as that. He's entitled to compensation

randylonghorn

challengemaster wrote: »

Best intentions don't pay bills

The content of the report is irrelavent here - the law was broken, it's as simple as that.

Actually, I doubt many people would find it irrelevant, challengemaster, and especially the OP, if he lives and works in the area.

But you're right in saying that the law has been broken, you would be right in saying that it happens all too often ... and the OP should seek appropriate compensation, if only to make the point.

Plus photographers are far from immune from the effects of the recession.

Mav11

challengemaster wrote: »

Best intentions don't pay bills

The content of the report is irrelavent here - the law was broken, it's as simple as that. He's entitled to compensation

And the compensation will have to be paid for by you, me and the victims through our taxes.

-Chris-

Mav11 wrote: »

And the compensation will have to be paid for by you, me and the victims through our taxes.

If they didn't want to pay for a photo they should have chosen one that was free to use (these are available, you know).

randylonghorn

Mav11 wrote: »

And the compensation will have to be paid for by you, me and the victims through our taxes.

You do realise that what you're actually saying there is that the government should actually steal things so that we have to pay less taxes?

challengemaster

randylonghorn wrote: »

Actually, I doubt many people would find it irrelevant, challengemaster, and especially the OP, if he lives and works in the area.

Explain to me how the content is relevant in any way to the DOJ breaking the law?

The content of the report is irrelavent in this context - Saying otherwise is like saying that some words make copyright infringment legal.

The fact of the matter is, the law was broken. It doesn't matter if you put the photo onto the news of the world, or on the report. The content of either is irrelavent to the issue of copyright infringement.

challengemaster

Mav11 wrote: »

And the compensation will have to be paid for by you, me and the victims through our taxes.

Stop being so sensationalist. If they went through proper channels in the first place, it would still be paid for by taxes, and we'd never have heard about it. You wouldn't be complaining then. Or maybe you would, who knows.

Mav11

-Chris- wrote: »

If they didn't want to pay for a photo they should have chosen one that was free to use (these are available, you know).

Agreed, somebody made a mistake but with the very best of intentions. It was not done for commercial reasons, for self gain but for the good of society. To my mind the error should not be used as an excuse to "fleece the bastids" who by the way are us!!

-Chris-

Mav11 wrote: »

Agreed, somebody made a mistake but with the very best of intentions. It was not done for commercial reasons, for self gain but for the good of society. To my mind the error should not be used as an excuse to "fleece the bastids" who by the way are us!!

OK, and what about this question?

-Chris- wrote: »

Were the other people who contributed to the report compensated?

Mav11

-Chris- wrote: »

OK, and what about this question?

I have no idea!

Jagle

Mav11 wrote: »

It was not done for commercial reasons, for self gain but for the good of society.

yes society benefited by having a picture on the front of the report?

ill sleep safe tonight knowing that society is saved by this one picture?

get a grip, they stole, he deserves to be compensated, end of

-Chris-

Mav11 wrote: »

I have no idea!

Would you think you should find out the answer before trying to decide which contributor to the report gets compensated for their contribution, and which doesn't?

Mav11

-Chris- wrote: »

Would you think you should find out the answer before trying to decide which contributor to the report gets compensated for their contribution, and which doesn't?

No, I don't believe that I should. But if it turned that there was then the same principle would apply.

challengemaster

Mav11 wrote: »

Agreed, somebody made a mistake but with the very best of intentions. It was not done for commercial reasons, for self gain but for the good of society. To my mind the error should not be used as an excuse to "fleece the bastids" who by the way are us!!

Have you really that little to complain about, or are you forgetting about certain things like the IMF bailout, which, let me assure you, 85 billion, which is over 42.5 million times as much as the OP will likely be compensated, will be coming out of taxes?

Do you honestly think that the OP getting proper compensation for this photo is the worst of the countries financial worries?

randylonghorn

Mav11 wrote: »

No, I don't believe that I should. But if it turned that there was then the same principle would apply.

Do you think that all the lawyers involved contributed their time for nothing, Mav?

For that matter, I wouldn't mind a response on my earlier point!

randylonghorn wrote: »

You do realise that what you're actually saying there is that the government should actually steal things so that we have to pay less taxes?

challengemaster wrote: »

Explain to me how the content is relevant in any way to the DOJ breaking the law?

The content of the report is irrelevant in this context - Saying otherwise is like saying that some words make copyright infringment legal.

I have already said:

randylonghorn wrote: »

But you're right in saying that the law has been broken, you would be right in saying that it happens all too often ... and the OP should seek appropriate compensation, if only to make the point.

so why don't YOU explain to me where I have said that "some words" make copyright infringement legal?

Apart from that, I certainly won't be wasting time explaining to you why the contents of such a report as this can't be glibly dismissed as irrelevant in any context, I'll let the years be your teacher on that one.

Mav11

Jagle wrote: »

yes society benefited by having a picture on the front of the report?

ill sleep safe tonight knowing that society is saved by this one picture?

get a grip, they stole, he deserves to be compensated, end of

Not saved, lets not overstate it, but perhaps helped in some small way. Maybe you'll sleep better now!

landsleaving

Mav11 wrote: »

Not saved, lets not overstate it, but perhaps helped in some small way. Maybe you'll sleep better now!

You put the picture there didn't you

Mav11

randylonghorn wrote: »

Do you think that all the lawyers involved contributed their time for nothing, Mav?

Thats part of the big problem, the lawyers, should we follow their lead or example??

-Chris-

Mav11 wrote: »

No, I don't believe that I should. But if it turned that there was then the same principle would apply.

So you want everyone who worked on this report to have worked for free? Are you seriously posting this stuff?

Mav11

landsleaving wrote: »

You put the picture there didn't you

Nope. But originally from Cork and know Belvelly well. If I had known that there was going to be this kind of fleece mentality I'm sure that I have a few photographs of the place that I would have contributed for nothing

randylonghorn

Mav11 wrote: »

randylonghorn wrote: »

Do you think that all the lawyers involved contributed their time for nothing, Mav?

Thats part of the big problem, the lawyers, should we follow their lead or example??

That doesn't answer my question, Mav.

And I see that you've ignored my other question for the second time.

Here's another one: are you familiar with the phrase "the labourer is worthy of his hire?"

The fact that lawyers' fees are too high really is, as challengemaster would say, irrelevant!

Mav11

randylonghorn wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question, Mav.

And I see that you've ignored my other question for the second time.

Here's another one: are you familiar with the phrase "the labourer is worthy of his hire?"

The fact that lawyers' fees are too high really is, as challengemaster would say, irrelevant!

But is the labourer being worthy of his hire the same as "Cha Ching" of "fleece the Bastids"??

randylonghorn

That I wouldn't have used those phrases myself in this context, I admit.

But I think they were used relatively light-heartedly on the one hand, and on the other born out of the collective frustration that photographers feel at having their work stolen day after day in this manner (because it's not an isolated incident!!).

And for the Dept. of Justice to do it is especially ironic, don't you think? ... given that they're responsible for upholding the law?

And ... my other questions?

landsleaving

Mav11 wrote: »

Nope. But originally from Cork and know Belvelly well. If I had known that there was going to be this kind of fleece mentality I'm sure that I have a few photographs of the place that I would have contributed for nothing

I'd imagine if the OP had been contacted prior to the photo being used he may have said the same. As it stands, it was the DOJ who had the 'fleece' mentality, in thinking they could abuse someone's intellectual property.

sineadw

Oh right, so the fact that it was the dept of justice who STOLE this man's property makes it ok then?

I used to work in a field somewhat linked to this. I am *absolutely* sure that everyone who gave a professional service in this report was well paid for it. To suggest that the OP shouldn't want to gain financial remuneration for the theft of his intellectual property is quite frankly childish. We are talking about our country's *department of justice* here for gods sake. Do you not think that they should act in a lawful manner? Do you think *they're* above the law??

Much as it might be distasteful, and i realise the subject of money being made over such a disgusting report might seem to be, there is absolutely NO connection between what the report contains and whether it's ok to steal something. Full stop. And if you were a regular poster here then you'd know that this type of thing is happening to photographers all the time. And if an example is made of the department of justice of all people (!!) Then that can only be a good thing IMHO. So yes, ca ching. If it stops theft again then too bloody right.

Mav11 wrote: »

randylonghorn wrote: »

But is the labourer being worthy of his hire the same as "Cha Ching" of "fleece the Bastids"??

Mav11

randylonghorn wrote: »

That I wouldn't have used those phrases myself in this context, I admit.

But I think they were used relatively light-heartedly on the one hand, and on the other born out of the collective frustration that photographers feel at having their work stolen day after day in this manner (because it's not an isolated incident!!).

And for the Dept. of Justice to do it is especially ironic, don't you think? ... given that they're responsible for upholding the law?

And ... my other questions?

Randy, I agree with the frustration and that it would seem that a mistake was made. However given the exceptional circumstances of the report which are certainly not light hearted, well.........

mikom

Mav11 wrote: »

Randy, I agree with the frustration and that it would seem that a mistake was made. However given the exceptional circumstances of the report which are certainly not light hearted, well.........

Yeah, best to add another unhappy camper to the lot.....

randylonghorn

Mav11 wrote: »

However given the exceptional circumstances of the report which are certainly not light hearted, well.........

I know that.

But now that you seem to have calmed down have a think about some of the statements you made in this thread.

laughter189

Cannot be justified imho - legal advice needed to deal with this

Mav11

randylonghorn wrote: »

I know that.

But now that you seem to have calmed down have a think about some of the statements you made in this thread.

Randy, I thought about the statements and I still can't get beyond the "fleece the bastids" proposition. I know as a taxpayer who would have to foot this bill I'm certainly not a bastid nor do I imagine are those who commissioned the report!! Nuff said!

randylonghorn

Mav11 wrote: »

Randy, I thought about the statements and I still can't get beyond the "fleece the bastids" proposition. I know as a taxpayer who would have to foot this bill I'm certainly not a bastid nor do I imagine are those who commissioned the report!! Nuff said!

And I can't get beyond you saying / implying that the government should actually steal things so that we have to pay less taxes!!

Now, both statements may be somewhat exaggerated and taken out of context, but while one stands, I reckon the other one should too!

You do realise, btw, that the "compensation" being talked about will probably boil down to double or at most treble what the photograph would have cost them in the first place?

That's assuming ofc that the OP wouldn't have been happy to donate it, given the context, if he had been asked properly, which is always a possibility.

challengemaster

Mav11 wrote: »

Randy, I thought about the statements and I still can't get beyond the "fleece the bastids" proposition. I know as a taxpayer who would have to foot this bill I'm certainly not a bastid nor do I imagine are those who commissioned the report!! Nuff said!

Oh please. First off you've ignored any other post by me questioning all your sensationalism - you love to pick and choose which points to respond to.

Secondly, if said bill even accounts for 1 cent from your yearly taxes i'd be surprised.

smelltheglove

sineadw wrote: »

I used to work in a field somewhat linked to this. I am *absolutely* sure that everyone who gave a professional service in this report was well paid for it. To suggest that the OP shouldn't want to gain financial remuneration for the theft of his intellectual property is quite frankly childish. We are talking about our country's *department of justice* here for gods sake.

Ditto, I spent many a day typing bills of costs and seeing just how much these experts charge for an hourly rate. One example recently showed me, a doctors visit is €50 give or take, I photographed the damage done to a girls head by a hairdressers so she could document what happened for her solicitor. (a neighbour may I add, not my usualy work) This girl had to ask the doctor for a letter for her claim, the doctor was to include any info he received from the hospital re her visits, the charge for the letter, being a document to be used in legal standing was not €50 but €250:eek::eek::eek:

So the OP should be compensated for the work, ok he was not commissioned to do work but they used some of his material, with or without his knowledge he should be compensated, websites using the image i.e. the image of the print should not have to compensate but I have seen the image being used alone on one news sites linked before, and as such he should be paid for their use of the image, had they used an image of the DoJ print with his picture then no but because they used the picture alone payment is due.

As for the taxpayer paying for it, you know what I would prefer to know my taxes paid for a fellow photogs image rather than prop up of the banks, pty the illegal use of the image means the charge will be more than it needed to be and we will also face the higher bill of reprints without the image and whatever they do to cover up the story because in most likelyhood the taxpayer has already paid a solicitor to look at the issue by now and try brush it under the carpet.

alfalad

I would have thought given the subject of the thread and what is being discussed, the illegal use of an image created by a photographer, the content is irrelevant. That is not of course to say that what is contained in the report is not shocking, disturbing and unforgiveable, but that is not what is being discussed. The department of justice stole a person’s property, he deserves to be paid for his work. Regardless of the dramatic phrases being used, saying that it's the taxpayer that will have to pay is hardly an excuse for him not to be paid, by that reasoning, teachers, nurses, gardai etc would be working for free, hardly likely.

If you steal something and you are catch you will have to pay some sort of punishment, equally so should they, in this case compensation.

On another note does anyone know, when the image was used on media websites do they seek permission from the DOJ to use it? Or do they just lift it from the report without asking?

Paulw

preilly79 wrote: »

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

There is no "fair use". Even editorial and reporting need to abide by copyright law. They tend to pay photographers (usually) unless photos are provided by the photographer.

Paulw

alfalad wrote: »

I would have thought given the subject of the thread and what is being discussed, the illegal use of an image created by a photographer, the content is irrelevant.

Exactly.

What/how/where the image was used doesn't matter. It was used, without permission. Therefore, the OP should be compensated for his work.

As for the comments from Mav11 - don't feed the troll.

Calina

Mav11 wrote: »

Randy, I thought about the statements and I still can't get beyond the "fleece the bastids" proposition. I know as a taxpayer who would have to foot this bill I'm certainly not a bastid nor do I imagine are those who commissioned the report!! Nuff said!

Please stop over emotionalising the debate. I doubt very much whether the charge for illegal usage of an image is even 1% of the total cost of putting that report together and individually, your contribution to the payment of the copyright holder is unlikely to be more than about 1c given how many people pay tax in various forms in this country.

There is a tendency in this country to be overly tolerant of wrongdoing. That tendency is a root cause behind the need for reports like the Cloyne report. We need to stop being quite so tolerant of wrong doing because as you tolerate small wrongdoings, so it becomes easier to justify bigger wrongdoings.

Ultimately, it ill behoves the Government to get off scot free from their obligations - incidentally current Government policy (apparently) is to clear invoices within 15 days by the way - particularly when they are in the wrong. It is up to them to carry out an internal review of how it happened that they issued an image without getting copyrightholder approval in advance and it should be done.

In the meantime, whether you like the language or not, the simple fact is we have a photographer who claims his image has been used without permission and in that case, compensation is normally due.

jhegarty

We just need to find 2 more and we can get their ISP to cut them off.

sineadw

Calina wrote: »

There is a tendency in this country to be overly tolerant of wrongdoing. That tendency is a root cause behind the need for reports like the Cloyne report. We need to stop being quite so tolerant of wrong doing because as you tolerate small wrongdoings, so it becomes easier to justify bigger wrongdoings.
.

I was trying to word a response to that effect last night, but I was just too angry for it to form. Thanks Calina

At Paulw - I don't mean to be pedantic, but there *is* provision for fair dealing in Irish copyright law: Fair dealing exemptions inscribed in Irish law include certain types of non-commercial use (such as for research or study) (Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Act, article 50) and uses for the purposes of criticism, review, or the reporting of current events (article 51).
In this case, the original usage by the Govt was absolutely in breach, but the subsequent usage by news outlets falls within this scope, and I'm not sure (legal "I'm NOT an expert" statements not withstanding) a judge would rule in favour of secondary breach here, as there would be an assumption of legality by the news teams. I could be wrong.. I just wouldn't like the OP to be expecting compensation where there may be none due. Again though, I'd be calling in a solicitor, not necessarily to act on my behalf, but to give advice as to how *I* should be acting and what I should expect. Copyright law is a bloody nightmare in this country, and the sooner it's (fairly) amended, the better for everyone.

mrboswell

Mav11 wrote: »

Randy, I thought about the statements and I still can't get beyond the "fleece the bastids" proposition. I know as a taxpayer who would have to foot this bill I'm certainly not a bastid nor do I imagine are those who commissioned the report!! Nuff said!

Hey Mav - forget the "exceptional circumstances" as they are irrelevant.

Don't worry yourself; any compensation gained will be taxable and that tax will go back into the coffers. It's not a total loss if it makes you feel any better. :rolleyes:

Now the expression "fleece the bastids" may seem a little strong but the OP is obviously a little disturbed by the situation and is prob a little sressed over a situation that was not caused by him. Add to that that the law was clearly broken and and the OP's IP has been taken advantage of.

I for one may not use the expression "fleece the bastids" but without doubt I would expect compensation for the stress of being forced into defending my intellectual property.

Please do not try to say it is for the good of the country and that it was only a little mistake. If noting else comes of it the person who used the image should be sacked.

Calina

mrboswell wrote: »

If noting else comes of it the person who used the image should be sacked.

I'd prefer that they learned from the experience, continued to work and just didn't do it again. Otherwise, someone else will slot into the position, may make the same mistake and here we are again having the discussion.

Very few people are faultfree on the work/no mistake front.

Splinters

Although it shouldnt have been used without permission anyway, its almost more of a shame it was used on this particular report given the unfortunate content of it as some people seem to be blind sided by context here.

The point is very simple that the OP's work was used without permission or remuneration and is therefor entitled to some compensation for this. Its no more complicated then this.

If the image had been used by Bord Failte as part of some "visit cork" initiative then nobody would consider arguing the point. The contents of that report are very unfortunate but it really has no baring on the issue at hand.