Dept of Justice Uses Photo Of Mine Without Permission

CabanSail

Just to confuse things even further.


Here is another photo of the same bridge associated with the report.

And ....

Here is a photo of the bridge which is available from Stockphotopro.com

EyeBlinks

CabanSail wrote: »

Just to confuse things even further.


Here is another photo of the same bridge associated with the report.

And ....

Here is a photo of the bridge which is available from Stockphotopro.com

The second link means exactly what ? Another photo of the same bridge, so?

Interesting to see they may have bought another image though (first link). I suppose they hope that will make it all go away.

CabanSail

EyeBlinks wrote: »

The second link means exactly what ? Another photo of the same bridge, so?

It is the only example of an image of that bridge on a Stock Photo site that I could locate, but I could not find it anywhere on istockphoto.com at all.

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Interesting to see they may have bought another image though (first link). I suppose they hope that will make it all go away.

That page seems to pre-date the report. It could be the image they were planning to use, but as it does not seem to be available from istockphoto it does not tie up with the claims of it being purchased.

Carrigman

The latest in this continuing saga is that I have requested the relevant istockphoto reference number form the DoJ - they maintain the image was purchased from that company.

That request was made on 18th July and I have sent a reminder today saying that I expected a full response within a few days.

I asked istockphoto if they could check for the image on their files and I received a reply from their Compliance Officer. She said they would need the relevant file number in order to investigate the matter further. She said that they "respect Intellectual Property rights and wish to resolve this in an expedient manner, with that being said we do require this information in order to proceed".

There is, I suppose, a possibility that someone could have lifted my image from Flickr and sent it to istockphoto as their own work, but I doubt it.

Let's see what the DoJ's next response will be.

spooky donkey

Yes best of luck with that. This whole affair makes me think I should start water marking but then watermarks ruin an image and are easy to cloyne out in photo shop[/Pun Intended]

Carrigman

I have now received an apology from the DoJ as follows:


3 August, 2011


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 25 July, 2011
regarding publication of the Cloyne report.

Upon our initial investigation into the matter, we were informed that the
photograph on the cover of the report was used with your permission as its
author and that the relevant payment had been made. On further
investigation it now transpires that this is not the case.

The Department therefore acknowledges that the photograph should not have
been used without your consent or permission as its author. We apologise
unreservedly for the error.

A limited number of copies of the report, with the photograph on the cover,
were printed internally in the Department and distributed without charge.
Following receipt of your correspondence of 13 July querying the use of the
photograph, it was removed from the Department's website as a precautionarymeasure. Further copies of the report have now been printed for sale, and these copies do not contain the photograph.

Yours sincerely,

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


I trust that the Department has learned a lesson from this: that neither it nor its agents should use a photographer's work without his/her permission.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied with the acknowledgment of wrongdoing and with the apology.


Regards,

John

jpb1974

Well done John... although I have to state how astonished I am towards their handling of the matter... unbelievable -

"We bought it"

"We didn't buy it we nicked it.. sorry and good luck"

pixbyjohn

Thanks for posting their apology and their explanation.

Paulw

Carrigman wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied with the acknowledgment of wrongdoing and with the apology.

Good that they finally admitted the truth, but in my opinion, they should still be paying for image usage and also paying for breach of copyright, especially since the cover image was used in national papers.

Jagle

Carrigman wrote: »

Upon our initial investigation into the matter, we were informed that the
photograph on the cover of the report was used with your permission as its
author and that the relevant payment had been made. On further
investigation it now transpires that this is not the case.

what a bull**** argument, i ment too ,and thought i paid for the stuff i robbed, sorry i got caught, turns out i didnt pay for it, makes no sense

EyeBlinks

Fair play to you John, you're a much milder man than me.

They've been telling Porkies all along, quite brazenly. I'd be looking for payment at the very least.

artyeva

seems they're trying to negate the whole thing by claiming that the copies of the report that had you photo on were given away and not sold. absolute poppycock argument of course, but no more than i would have expected from an irish government department. i know you say you're happy with the apology, but i have to say i wouldn't be. the fact that the copies containing your photo were free and not sold has nothing to do with the fact they stole the image in the first place.

11811

jpb1974 wrote: »

"We bought it"

"We didn't buy it we nicked it.. sorry and good luck"

Ah yeah Justice, DoJ style.

jpb1974

It's total and utter hypocrisy.

Splinters

The perfect reply to that would be a short and sweet mail thanking them for acknowledging the use of your picture and for clarifying the matter. Then simply finishing by asking if they could they forward you on the relevant details for you to invoice them for its usage.

They were happy to claim the image was initially PURCHASED from istockphoto, so at some stage they were willing to acknowledge the image was or at least should have been paid for. Now the issue of the image ownership has been cleared up theres no good reason why that fee should not be made to yourself now.

As previously mentioned the fact the report was not sold for profit has no baring on this whatsoever. Its a very safe assumption everybody elses services in putting that report together were paid for, why shouldnt yours!!

mikom

Carrigman wrote: »

I trust that the Department has learned a lesson from this: that neither it nor its agents should use a photographer's work without his/her permission.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied with the acknowledgment of wrongdoing and with the apology.

Meanwhile in the halls of justice......

"Well, we got away with it lads."
"Johno, hold that apology letter on file as it's a dinger and hit the spot perfectly"

challengemaster

Carrigman wrote: »

I trust that the Department has learned a lesson from this: that neither it nor its agents should use a photographer's work without his/her permission.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied with the acknowledgment of wrongdoing and with the apology.


Regards,

John

You chased it this far just to let it go at this point? They've admitted they're at fault, letting them away with it now won't teach them anything...

kfish2oo2

Splinters wrote: »

The perfect reply to that would be a short and sweet mail thanking them for acknowledging the use of your picture and for clarifying the matter. Then simply finishing by asking if they could they forward you on the relevant details for you to invoice them for its usage.

They were happy to claim the image was initially PURCHASED from istockphoto, so at some stage they were willing to acknowledge the image was or at least should have been paid for. Now the issue of the image ownership has been cleared up theres no good reason why that fee should not be made to yourself now.

As previously mentioned the fact the report was not sold for profit has no baring on this whatsoever. Its a very safe assumption everybody elses services in putting that report together were paid for, why shouldnt yours!!

I agree with this 100%. If this was any private company, they would be offering you at least some compensation for stealing the image in the first place, even if they never use it again. Just because its the DoJ they feel that they are above reproach - which is bull****. Public institutions are accountable to the people, and in this case the people (being you, John) have been stolen from and then subsequently lied to by said institution. This is not only unacceptable in a legal sense, its unacceptable in a moral sense - and this is coming from the very institution thats sole purpose is to make judgments based on morality and law. The hypocrisy here is just staggering.

Tin Foil Hat

Carrigman wrote: »

I trust that the Department has learned a lesson from this: that neither it nor its agents should use a photographer's work without his/her permission.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied with the acknowledgment of wrongdoing and with the apology.


Regards,

John

Hmmm!! An apology might have been approriate as a response if it was the first response (barely). In fairness, anyone can make a geniune error.
However the iStock thing was a barefaced lie. I'm not sure I would leave it at that if it was me.
The DoJ certainly wouldn't be so generous to you if the roles were reversed.

ScumLord

Paulw wrote: »

Good that they finally admitted the truth, but in my opinion, they should still be paying for image usage and also paying for breach of copyright, especially since the cover image was used in national papers.

It looks like the DoJ are saying they've been conned so you should move onto the company that actually stole your photo and charged the DoJ for it. They do owe you money as they profited from the photo.

Kindly ask the DoJ to send on receipts as prove of purchase so you can take the matter further with the company that did the stealing.

magicbastarder

ScumLord wrote: »

It looks like the DoJ are saying they've been conned

i don't see any claim being made. they don't make any claim as to how the 'oversight' happened.

sollisb

I just read this thread top to bottom.

John it is your photo and entirely your decision to be happy with the DoJ reply or not.

I do see some glaring omissions though;

1. Are RTE entitled to continue displaying this image?
2. Are web sites entitled to continue using the image?

In fairness the apology stinks.. "We bought it from iStock, oh wait, we didn't and we're not paying for mis-using it"...

Not withstanding that John may be more than happy to have his photo 'on show' I do feel that the DoJ can thank themselves very very lucky indeed if John decides not to seek compensation.

I do fear however the tone and content of the DoJ reply is/was a 'sorry, run along' type reply. Had this been a professional photographer, would they have got off so easily?

The facts are, they stole the photo and published it world-wide, and on being told they didn't have permission to use the photo they said 'sorry'..

So next time the squadie pulls me for speeding I can say 'howye Guard, sorry!".. And I'll get no fine nor penalty points.. Rrrriiiiight..

-B-

opti76

dont leave it go at that .... thats a bull**** excuse ..

Stephen P

Not a great result to this saga.

You probably don't need to hear this now but a solicitor should have been consulted straight away. If you owed them money they wouldn't send you an email in the hope of payment, they would cut to the chase and take legal action.

You still might have a chance of compensation if you go to a solicitor?

colblimp

sollisb wrote: »

I just read this thread top to bottom.

John it is your photo and entirely your decision to be happy with the DoJ reply or not.

I do see some glaring omissions though;

1. Are RTE entitled to continue displaying this image?
2. Are web sites entitled to continue using the image?

In fairness the apology stinks.. "We bought it from iStock, oh wait, we didn't and we're not paying for mis-using it"...

Not withstanding that John may be more than happy to have his photo 'on show' I do feel that the DoJ can thank themselves very very lucky indeed if John decides not to seek compensation.

I do fear however the tone and content of the DoJ reply is/was a 'sorry, run along' type reply. Had this been a professional photographer, would they have got off so easily?

The facts are, they stole the photo and published it world-wide, and on being told they didn't have permission to use the photo they said 'sorry'..

So next time the squadie pulls me for speeding I can say 'howye Guard, sorry!".. And I'll get no fine nor penalty points.. Rrrriiiiight..

-B-

Great post - hard to argue with any of that.

sNarah

I'm still curious though as where exactly did the image come from? Did they lift it from your flickr? Was it indeed scanned somehow?

The irony of this whole debacle is just unbelievable. And you are indeed a much better man than most of us, as stated by others, for not pursuing the matter any further with the DoJ, I know I would.

CabanSail

I probably would not have settled so easily either. My feeling is that I would expect a copy of the report after the investigation was carried out. I mean the DoJ must have an extra onus on it to be seen to be obeying the law. When there is a flagrant breach of copyright law like this there should be a full investigation. The injured party (Carrigman) should be given a copy of that report or at least a full explanation of how this breach occurred.

PCPhoto

sorry for this but..... it looks like Carrigman needs to get back in touch with the DOJ and seek payment* - his image used again !! (he should also send an invoice to breakingnews.ie for usage of the image)

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/final-section-of-cloyne-report-published-532816.html

* the reason I say DOJ (Dept of Justice) .... is because they used his image and distributed his image without his permission - earlier in the thread he seemed to be happy enough with them not paying ...but it seems as though the image was distributed by the DOJ... something which could/should earn him a couple of thousand at least.

djd80

I also saw the image on the RTE news last night....

SteelyDanJalapeno

Saw it on RTE too,

MagicMarker

Straight to a solicitor imo.

sineadw

Maybe the OP gave permission this time? Hope so!

CabanSail

It's possible, in fact likely, that these images are "file images" from the original launch. As the media reported it at the time they can still use these shots as they fall under the Editorial catagory. This would be outside of the control of the DoJ.

djd80

Its on the Examiner website now as well...

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/abuse-victims-overhaul-justice-system-177774.html

smash

This is really poor show by the media, or Dept of Justice is the OP hasn't allowed permission.

dinneenp

Don't let it go!
I'm curious to see what they come up with next.

magicbastarder

smash wrote: »

This is really poor show by the media

probably not. they probably got the report when it first came out and are still using it.

Carrigman

Thanks to all you eagle-eyed folks who spotted my photo of Belvelly Bridge being used again in various media reports on the final chapter of the Cloyne Report.

I'm assuming that they simply had the image on file from the original publication date so its use by them didn't bother me at all.

I'm still astounded at the Dept of Justice (or whichever agency they used) lifting the photo from either my Flickr site or my website in the first instance without asking my permission. The irony of it!

To be honest though, I was flattered that somebody saw it was good enough to feature on the cover of the report. And I've dined out on the story ever since.

I had some fun persecuting an unfortunate civil servant for a few weeks culminating in a fulsome apology.

Should I have pursued them for compensation as some people have suggested? Perhaps I should have but that would have entailed getting a solicitor on the case and to be honest I didn't think it was worth the candle.

Besides, the report itself is replete with appalling tales of abuse and suffering and I felt, rightly or wrongly, that to be getting too het up over a photograph on the cover would be crass in the extreme. Had it been some commercial enterprise using my photo to sell their wares I would have adopted a far more aggressive approach.

I'm not a professional photographer and I don't normally sell my images so it's not as if a commercial opportunity was lost.

Nor am I under any illusions about the intrinsic value of my photographs. Ansel Adams I ain't! I'm just another fair to middling amateur who does photography for the pure love of it and who doesn't leverage it for monetary purposes.

I think all of us who post images online face the risk of them being used by individuals or organisations surreptitiously. What can we do to avoid it? Not a lot.

Not uploading high resolution versions might help but in the case of my photo of Belvelly Bridge it was only 861 pixels on the longest side and was at 72 dpi yet it was still good enough to print. Anyhow, software like Genuine Fractals - widely used in the publishing industry - can easily produce top quality images from low resolution files.

Putting a lage watermark on an image (such as "© Joe Bloggs") is another deterrent but can be overcome by someone adept in Photoshop. It also detracts from the impact of the image and so is something I would never do.

Frankly, I don't care if private individuals use my photos without my permission on their blogs, websites and the like but commercial enterprises are a different matter: ask my permission at the very least and if you stand to make money out of it send some my way as well.

Regards,

John

EyeBlinks

It obviously doesn't apply in this case John, as you're happy for them to use your image.

However, given the nature and content of the report, I'm sure there are many out there who, even for monetary compensation would not wish their photograph to be associated with such a report.

I think the Department of Justice has been way offside in this whole issue. I've no doubt too that they would do it again.

MiskyBoyy

Only seen this thread now for the first time and WOW! Of all people to 'steal' something, the Department of Justice. That's just insane and pure cheeky. I think you handled the whole situation like a gentleman but I can't say I would have reacted the same myself. Other than that, it must have been a real compliment for your photo to have been used in such a way!