Dept of Justice Uses Photo Of Mine Without Permission

Dermo

mrboswell wrote: »

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

Somebody in the public sector being sacked? HAHAHAHAHAHA! ... oh crap, I can't breathe I'm laughing so much

Paulw

sineadw wrote: »

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.

Ok, fair point. But, from reading of the act, I can't see any way that "Fair Dealing" would apply here.

Section 51, 2 exempts photos from Fair Dealing for editorial. So, the press can't claim any "Fair Dealing" if they reprint the image.

(2) Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the
purpose of reporting current events shall not infringe copyright in
that work, where the report is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.

sineadw

Paulw wrote: »

Ok, fair point. But, from reading of the act, I can't see any way that "Fair Dealing" would apply here.

Section 51, 2 exempts photos from Fair Dealing for editorial. So, the press can't claim any "Fair Dealing" if they reprint the image.

(2) Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the
purpose of reporting current events shall not infringe copyright in
that work, where the report is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.

If the image was used *as a photograph*, for instance, a sports photo you might take to illustrate a story about a rugby game, then yes, that would fall outside the scope of fair dealing and its usage would be an infringement of copyright. In this case though, the image was an integral part of a publication, forming the front cover, and there would have been an assumption that the contents were used legally, so the reporting was on the report itself, and not the photo. It's the same as showing the cover of a Maeve Binchy book for the purposes of review. Does that make sense?

Paulw

sineadw wrote: »

In this case though, the image was an integral part of a publication, forming the front cover, and there would have been an assumption that the contents were used legally, so the reporting was on the report itself, and not the photo. It's the same as showing the cover of a Maeve Binchy book for the purposes of review. Does that make sense?

I'd try to argue that the front cover image is not an integral part of the publication. The image itself has almost no relevance to the report. It's simply a cover image.

It would be an interesting legal discussion, and one that a judge would have to rule on, I think.

If just the image itself was used for editorial purposes, it would be a breach of copyright. But, I think, your point would be that if the whole book cover page was used then it could possibly fall under this Fair Dealing clause.

sineadw

That's exactly it Paul. Its use was to illustrate a report that would have assumed legality of use of the cover image. It's exactly the same clause that allows news and arts shows to screen clips of the new Harry Potter film for review or reporting, or, like I said, a photographic illustration on a Maeve Binchy book cover for review. It's totally legal (notwithstanding illegal use in the first place).

PopeBuckfastXVI

My take (IANAL):

Usage for reporting on the 'Report' [Image showing front cover of report]: Fair
Usage for reporting on the 'Copyright Theft' [Showing the actual image in question]: Fair
Usage for reporting on some story involving 'The Bridge' in the picture: Unfair

smelltheglove

sineadw wrote: »

That's exactly it Paul. Its use was to illustrate a report that would have assumed legality of use of the cover image. It's exactly the same clause that allows news and arts shows to screen clips of the new Harry Potter film for review or reporting, or, like I said, a photographic illustration on a Maeve Binchy book cover for review. It's totally legal (notwithstanding illegal use in the first place).

Yes but some links shown earlier in the thread showed news sites using the image alone i.e. http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2011/0714/ireland/papal-nuncio-distressed-by-cloyne-report-findings-512778.html has used the image alone and not the report cover in its entire so I would assume that they also would be due to pay for usage.

sineadw

smelltheglove wrote: »

Yes but some links shown earlier in the thread showed news sites using the image alone i.e. http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2011/0714/ireland/papal-nuncio-distressed-by-cloyne-report-findings-512778.html has used the image alone and not the report cover in its entire so I would assume that they also would be due to pay for usage.

Not necessarily, as the usage would again have assumed licence being given originally to the publication, and the usage here is editorial. The OP would really have to speak to a solicitor about all this though.

sineadw

sineadw wrote: »

smelltheglove wrote: »

Yes but some links shown earlier in the thread showed news sites using the image alone i.e. http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2011/0714/ireland/papal-nuncio-distressed-by-cloyne-report-findings-512778.html has used the image alone and not the report cover in its entire so I would assume that they also would be due to pay for usage.

Not necessarily, as the usage would again have assumed licence being given originally to the publication, and the usage here is editorial. The OP would really have to speak to a solicitor about all this though.

Admittedly though, it's not nearly as clear cut there. Hmmm...

mrboswell

Calina wrote: »

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.

Sorry Calina but even though I am a public servant if something like that will get you the sack in the private sector it should also get you the sack in the public sector, particularly when it was such as balls up.

PCPhoto

image used again.

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/cloyne-mass-goers-to-hear-archbishops-letter-of-apology-513018.html

unfortunately - if they are using a photo of the actual report and cropping it - they wont have to pay up, if they are using the original image they should pay up.

sineadw

And judging by the tones of the image, that's exactly what they've done.

sheesh

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!!

So, what? he shouldn't be paid? Because its so awful? everybody else got paid and paid well

Mav11

sheesh wrote: »

So, what? he shouldn't be paid? Because its so awful? everybody else got paid and paid well

And paid fairly, but not on the gouge or get the nose into the trough level that has been suggested in this thread. I won't bother quoting as this is more than clear from earlier posts.

Damokc

A photographer spends thousands on equipment and probably insurance for it, goes and sets up his stuff to get the picture, spending time and effort to do so, then maybe a few hours with software to get it perfect, then uploads to show his work and some twat just does a few click on the net to rob it and use it without his permission.
its wrong and he should be compensated for it.
What if he used Dept. of Justice headed paper to write letters to people????
He'd probably get jail!

cornbb

The OP should be compensated with the going market rate, and maybe a *little* extra for the inconvenience of having to go after the DoJ for the money. And that's it.

This "fleece the b*stards" mentality isn't really on, IMO, it would stink of greed and the compo culture and would be especially nasty as he would be going after the taxpayer, not some private company.

A fair price for the photo sounds like a nice little windfall, especially as he describes himself as non-professional, and would be totally appropriate.

i5kra

I would agree completely - a reasonable and fair payment for the use of your photo would be appropriate. You should also ask to be credited for the photo on the report.

However, this whole situation does highlight the fact that public bodies seem to regard copying images off the internet and using them without contacting the owner as perfectly acceptable practice. If Coke or McDonalds did that there would be uproar and rightly so. Our public institutions need to be held to the exact same standards, if not higher.

This is a practice that should most definitely be stamped out.

CabanSail

cornbb wrote: »

The OP should be compensated with the going market rate, and maybe a *little* extra for the inconvenience of having to go after the DoJ for the money. And that's it.

This "fleece the b*stards" mentality isn't really on, IMO, it would stink of greed and the compo culture and would be especially nasty as he would be going after the taxpayer, not some private company.

A fair price for the photo sounds like a nice little windfall, especially as he describes himself as non-professional, and would be totally appropriate.

If a photographer discovers that their image has been stolen and used illegally the outcome is to charge the same amount as if the thief had gone through the correct channels to obtain the image then why should anyone do the right thing? Chances are that most of the images you use will not be discovered and when one is then you only have to pay what you were going to anyway. There is also the aspect that the image may not have ever been intended for sale. There could be good reasons why the author would not want their work associated with placement. This could cause distress and embarrassment to the author. For these reasons alone the fee for a stolen image should be substantially larger than for a similar image legitimately obtained.

What you are saying is that if someone steals your car and they are caught then they should have the option to purchase the car at the normal market value and without any penalty.

EyeBlinks

CabanSail wrote: »

If a photographer discovers that their image has been stolen and used illegally the outcome is to charge the same amount as if the thief had gone through the correct channels to obtain the image then why should anyone do the right thing? Chances are that most of the images you use will not be discovered and when one is then you only have to pay what you were going to anyway. There is also the aspect that the image may not have ever been intended for sale. There could be good reasons why the author would not want their work associated with placement. This could cause distress and embarrassment to the author. For these reasons alone the fee for a stolen image should be substantially larger than for a similar image legitimately obtained.

What you are saying is that if someone steals your car and they are caught then they should have the option to purchase the car at the normal market value and without any penalty.

Well, all of the above and in this case there may well be another important element. Given the nature of the report the OP may vehemently oppose the use of his photo at all.

cornbb

CabanSail wrote: »

If a photographer discovers that their image has been stolen and used illegally the outcome is to charge the same amount as if the thief had gone through the correct channels to obtain the image then why should anyone do the right thing?

Yes, they should charge the same amount. Why not? If you look at it from the POV of the amateur photographer, who presumably never intended to make money from the photo anyway, then he still lands a decent windfall.

Chances are that most of the images you use will not be discovered and when one is then you only have to pay what you were going to anyway. There is also the aspect that the image may not have ever been intended for sale. There could be good reasons why the author would not want their work associated with placement.

The OP hasn't said, but if I was him then I would be hugely pleased that my image was good enough to be prominently featured on the cover of a prominent report (although I would still expect fair compensation for it). What are the good reasons that he would not like the placement? Surely the content of the report is irrelevant.

This could cause distress and embarrassment to the author. For these reasons alone the fee for a stolen image should be substantially larger than for a similar image legitimately obtained.

What value are you putting on his intangible "distress and embarrassment", if he is indeed distressed or embarrassed? Trying to squeeze them for money citing this would be the compo culture I'm talking about. The DoJ or anyone else would not pay a sum substantially greater than the market value without going through legal channels, i.e. if you try to "fleece them" then they will fight it, and the solicitors will end up with the greatest windfall. As a taxpayer I would hugely resent that. For this reason I suggested asking for a small extra amount of compensation. You are talking about greed, I am talking about something that is fair for everyone involved.

What you are saying is that if someone steals your car and they are caught then they should have the option to purchase the car at the normal market value and without any penalty.

If your car or anything else is ever stolen then your best-case scenario is to either get it back intact or the insurance company's conservative estimate of it's market value.

JohnK

I think you're missing the point which is that the extra amount is to hopefully act as a deterrent to this kind of activity. If you're just paying standard rate after the fact then why would you ever pay for a photo again? You'd just print it and hope for the best but even if the photographer does come forward then what harm as you're just paying the standard rate.

In the analogy of a car being stolen, if the thieves are found they risk prison or a fine etc. which is the equivalent of the extra value on the price of the photo. Its primarily a deterrent to stop it happening in the future.

Dermo

cornbb wrote: »

If your car or anything else is ever stolen then your best-case scenario is to either get it back intact or the insurance company's conservative estimate of it's market value.

If your car was stolen and the criminal caught, would it be ok for the court to order him to pay you the worth of your car as if he bought it and leave it at that?

How does that prevent it happening again?

Someone steals an item. The best case scenario for the criminal is that he is not caught and keeps the item. The worst case scenario for the criminal is that he is caught, asked to pay the regular value of the item and gets to keep it.

Are you advocating no punishment for stealing?

edit: beaten to it by JohnK

cornbb

JohnK wrote: »

I think you're missing the point which is that the extra amount is to hopefully act as a deterrent to this kind of activity. If you're just paying standard rate after the fact then why would you ever pay for a photo again? You'd just print it and hope for the best but even if the photographer does come forward then what harm as you're just paying the standard rate.

I'm sure the DoJ already has a budget for that sort of thing and that this was likely an error by a stupid individual who didn't realize that everything on the internet isn't free.

If there really is a culture of intellectual property theft at the DoJ then I think it's a much bigger matter than one the OP can deal with by asking them for more money...

In the analogy of a car being stolen, if the thieves are found they risk prison or a fine etc. which is the equivalent of the extra value on the price of the photo. Its primarily a deterrent to stop it happening in the future.

In which case the law of the land punishes the thief, its not the job of the victim. In this case I see greed masquerading as justice.

smelltheglove

cornbb wrote: »

Yes, they should charge the same amount. Why not? If you look at it from the POV of the amateur photographer, who presumably never intended to make money from the photo anyway, then he still lands a decent windfall.

The OP hasn't said, but if I was him then I would be hugely pleased that my image was good enough to be prominently featured on the cover of a prominent report (although I would still expect fair compensation for it). What are the good reasons that he would not like the placement? Surely the content of the report is irrelevant.

What value are you putting on his intangible "distress and embarrassment", if he is indeed distressed or embarrassed? Trying to squeeze them for money citing this would be the compo culture I'm talking about.

It isnt a windfall, it is monies due to use of an image, he hasnt won something:o

Compo culture.....? They could easily have snatched the image from a person who was in fact a victim of the crimes, do you think one of the victims would be happy to be stolen from in the course of making this report....? There are many reasons why someone would not want their name associated with this report or any other tbh. I recently turned away a well paying job as I did not want to be associated with the particular movement.

The Department of Justice broke the law, they shoud follow the correct procedures and usually when the law is broken there is a penalty, in this case a higher charge than would have been due if they followed the correct procedures.

Carrigman

Folks,

Thanks for all the interest shown in this thread.

I have received a reply from the Dept of Justice today as follows:


Dear Mr. Finn,

I am directed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Mr Alan
Shatter, T.D., to refer to your correspondence dated 13 July, 2011
regarding the Cloyne Report.

The Cloyne Report (including the image on the front cover) was produced by
an independent Commission of Investigation established under the
Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. The image was purchased from the
website www.istockphoto.com and all relevant fees were paid.

Yours sincerely,
______________
Damien Brennan
Private Secretary to the Minister for Justice and Equality


Which is very curious as I have never made the image available to istockphoto or any other stock agency.

I have asked Damien to give me further details of who purchased the image and when, and the relevant purchase reference.

I have also checked the istockphoto site and, as expected, could not find the photo.

I have also emailed istockphoto about the matter.

Regards,

John

PCPhoto

goto a solicitor and start legal action on the matter.

they have tried to claim that the image was purchased from istockphotos and following a check its not available to purchase on istockphotos so ... they are trying to fob you off.

like any other government department .... its not our fault .... we didn't prepare the report, erm.... it was purchased through a site (just not willing to accept the blame)

ScumLord

Carrigman wrote: »

Folks,

Thanks for all the interest shown in this thread.

I have received a reply from the Dept of Justice today as follows:


Dear Mr. Finn,

I am directed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Mr Alan
Shatter, T.D., to refer to your correspondence dated 13 July, 2011
regarding the Cloyne Report.

The Cloyne Report (including the image on the front cover) was produced by
an independent Commission of Investigation established under the
Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. The image was purchased from the
website www.istockphoto.com and all relevant fees were paid.

Yours sincerely,
______________
Damien Brennan
Private Secretary to the Minister for Justice and Equality


Which is very curious as I have never made the image available to istockphoto or any other stock agency.

I have asked Damien to give me further details of who purchased the image and when, and the relevant purchase reference.

I have also checked the istockphoto site and, as expected, could not find the photo.

I have also emailed istockphoto about the matter.

Regards,

John

And the misdirection game of hide and seek begins. I really wouldn't start paying for a solicitor just yet because they're about to lead you around the garden path in hopes you give up and mounting solicitor bills will make you want to do that.

Wait for istockphoto to come back with a reply.

Ballyman

Just so you know, istockphoto are owned by Getty.
Getty have an agreement with Flickr to use images from flickr.

However they can't just pick and choose from flickr, they can only use images that have been requested from you through flickr and accepted by Getty and as your picture is obviously not licencsed by Getty then it's hard to see how they ended up with your pic??

magicbastarder

Carrigman wrote: »

The Cloyne Report (including the image on the front cover) was produced by
an independent Commission of Investigation established under the
Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. The image was purchased from the
website www.istockphoto.com and all relevant fees were paid.

my sweet, succulent ass it came from istockphoto. it's obviously (as mentioned previously) a bad scan off a damaged print.
ask them to explain the massive drop in quality.

Tin Foil Hat

If the DoF are happy that everything is 100% above board then they will be happy to reinstate the original cover, with picture.
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Cloyne_Rpt_Intro.pdf/Files/Cloyne_Rpt_Intro.pdf

Tactical

Not sure if this applies in this case but a request under the Freedom of Information Act requesting the documentation surrounding the sourcing and purchasing of the image may be useful. It generally takes a while though and now typically attracts a fee. Email communications from a public / government department are subject to this act also.

alfalad

If istockphoto are at fault here and they were the ones who stole the image, do those people who have said that owner of the photograph should only get the going rate, because as a taxpayer they would have to foot the bill now feel the same or do they feel that a private company should have to cough up significantly more?

Tactical

alfalad wrote: »

If istockphoto are at fault here and they were the ones who stole the image, do those people who have said that owner of the photograph should only get the going rate, because as a taxpayer they would have to foot the bill now feel the same or do they feel that a private company should have to cough up significantly more?

But didn't John say that he hasn't supplied the image to any stock company and that it doesn't appear on their website. Then there's the whole issue of the poor quality of the image itself...?

alfalad

Tactical wrote: »

But didn't John say that he hasn't supplied the image to any stock company and that it doesn't appear on their website. Then there's the whole issue of the poor quality of the image itself...?

Hence I said if, and what if it was a private company that stole the image rather than a state department, should the private company be punished for stealing or just pay going rate as some people have suggested the DOJ should pay. I'm not saying that the photo did come from istock or not, just posing the question. I agree it does seem a bit strange.

Tactical

Ah, now I see.

FOI (if applicable) could reveal a lot.

CabanSail

It may turn out that what is being said is true. That the DoJ purchased the image in good faith from the stock agency. In turn the stock agency acquired the image for a contributor who is passing off others work as their own. It is important to keep an open mind at this stage until the evidence is examined. Those of you who recall "Pint" who used to post here can see how easy it can be to pass off others work as their own. In order to make money from stock images I hear you need a very large portfolio. Maybe someone has taken a "short-cut" to obtain enough images. This is just another possibility but worth considering. I would really like to see the OP get to bottom of the matter and that the guilty party is the one identified and they pay the price.

mehfesto

I'm surprised nobody has suggested calling Joe Duffy yet. Not saying it's a solution, but getting the issue into the public eye would put it up them to at least deal with the issue quicky.

He may be full of ****e the odd time, but he gets result.

colblimp

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.

:eek:

ScumLord

colblimp wrote: »

:eek:

You know it's true.

Paulw

More likely "wrapped" than "raped". :rolleyes:

IamBlip

CabanSail wrote: »

It may turn out that what is being said is true. That the DoJ purchased the image in good faith from the stock agency. In turn the stock agency acquired the image for a contributor who is passing off others work as their own. It is important to keep an open mind at this stage until the evidence is examined. Those of you who recall "Pint" who used to post here can see how easy it can be to pass off others work as their own. In order to make money from stock images I hear you need a very large portfolio. Maybe someone has taken a "short-cut" to obtain enough images. This is just another possibility but worth considering. I would really like to see the OP get to bottom of the matter and that the guilty party is the one identified and they pay the price.

Does a stock agency not require a full res image? Whereas the one on the report is poor quality so unlikely to come from stock.

gunterwest

Would an acknowledgement of the photographer appearing beneath the photo where-ever it is used, be more beneficial than a relatively small lump sum cash "oh sh*t" payment from DOJ. Might bring in significant paying work. Perhaps this is the best arguement to be used? Just a thought. Definately the owner of the pic should get something for it, but all I'm saying is take the time to think about what would gain you the most in the long run.

smelltheglove

Many many many business, publications etc try to get photos for free in return for credit / acknowledgement.... No use really to the photographer, it is quite unlikely they would get any significant amount of money if any at all from an acknowledgment.

CabanSail

gunterwest wrote: »

Would an acknowledgement of the photographer appearing beneath the photo where-ever it is used, be more beneficial than a relatively small lump sum cash "oh sh*t" payment from DOJ. Might bring in significant paying work. Perhaps this is the best arguement to be used? Just a thought. Definately the owner of the pic should get something for it, but all I'm saying is take the time to think about what would gain you the most in the long run.

Other than yourself or friends and family, nobody will take any heed of the name below a photo. It still should be acknowledged anyway but that is just a cheap cop out. If the OP is an amateur then they will not be looking for more work. Even if their looking for paid work the chances of picking up jobs from this are pretty close to zero.

mikom

They take acknowledgments down at the food store, right?

Paulw

gunterwest wrote: »

Would an acknowledgement of the photographer appearing beneath the photo where-ever it is used, be more beneficial than a relatively small lump sum cash "oh sh*t" payment from DOJ.

In short - No. Acknowledgement, credit, publicity, etc is worth nothing, not a cent. It doesn't bring business, unless you're out actively looking for free publicity.

A Euro in the hand is much more valuable than 2 million website hits, or credit in a book. Trust me, I know from direct experience.

gunterwest

My post was phrased as a question rather than a statement of advice, it was just a thought, I don't know much about it.

Slidinginfinity

gunterwest wrote: »

Would an acknowledgement of the photographer appearing beneath the photo where-ever it is used, be more beneficial than a relatively small lump sum cash "oh sh*t" payment from DOJ. Might bring in significant paying work. Perhaps this is the best arguement to be used? Just a thought. Definately the owner of the pic should get something for it, but all I'm saying is take the time to think about what would gain you the most in the long run.

gunterwest wrote: »

My post was phrased as a question rather than a statement of advice, it was just a thought, I don't know much about it.

Yeah, if ya don't know 'work for acknowledgement/credit/publicity' is a BIG topic with photographers.
There are a lot of people out there who under value photography. photographers and creative types in general.

EyeBlinks

Just wondering why the image was taken down by the DOJ if it was purchased properly as they maintain ?

PCPhoto

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Just wondering why the image was taken down by the DOJ if it was purchased properly as they maintain ?

thats a fairly normal thing to do - in the event of any dispute the offending image should be removed until clarification on ownership is made....this minimises possible damage in the event of someone looking for damages. (civil court etc)