Copyright Query - Newspaper use of image - no permission

mehfesto

New enquiry:

I took some shots of a prominent Irish music blogger for my thesis last year. I shared the shots with her (happily) and I see today they're being used in the Irish Times.

Now as I never came to any terms with use of them with her, do I have any comeback on this. I know I own the copyright - but I didn't state with her about any right to copy! She's a good friend, and I wouldn't want her to be seem as causing hassle over an issue such as this - more importantly, if I got pedantic over something small like this (when I'm not even sure if I'm in the right), I'm afraid I'd blacklist myself essentially. The Irish Music Scene is a small one.

Should I ask her if they asked, and then send an invoice if not?

CabanSail

mehfesto wrote: »

New enquiry:

I took some shots of a prominent Irish music blogger for my thesis last year. I shared the shots with her (happily) and I see today they're being used in the Irish Times.

Now as I never came to any terms with use of them with her, do I have any comeback on this. I know I own the copyright - but I didn't state with her about any right to copy! She's a good friend, and I wouldn't want her to be seem as causing hassle over an issue such as this - more importantly, if I got pedantic over something small like this (when I'm not even sure if I'm in the right), I'm afraid I'd blacklist myself essentially. The Irish Music Scene is a small one.

Should I ask her if they asked, and then send an invoice if not?

It sounds to me that it is fairly likely that she may have given permission to use these images. If that is the case you still own the copyright BUT it may be a case where you could cause upset with your friend over this.

It would be best to ask her if she gave permission for them to be used. If so then contact the Irish Times to inform them of the situation. Inform them that you are the copyright owner. That while you will allow use this time that they are not to place this image in their image library and they must seek your permission before any further use.

If she has not given permission and the images have been lifted, then the advice in the previous posts of this thread applies.

mehfesto

CabanSail wrote: »

If she has not given permission and the images have been lifted, then the advice in the previous posts of this thread applies.

She said she didn't know which image they'd use, but gave them clearance to use an image of her. Not sure where I stand, really. As I say, she's a good mate and I'd rather it not be an issue, but at the same time it'd be nice to have been even credited!

gbee

mehfesto wrote: »

New enquiry: I took some shots of a prominent Irish music blogger for my thesis last year. I shared the shots with her (happily) and I see today they're being used in the Irish Times.

No, you actually don't own the copy right of a person. You took her photo and gave her copies, she then sends them to the newspapers as promotion for herself.

Perfectly acceptable.

You will find in the music industry that they will send pictures everywhere. Back in the heydays of David Bailey he'd sell prints by the hundreds to artist, bands and so forth, it was a massive industry as each and every radio station, TV station, local, small and national newspapers would be sent a print or two [10x8" at that] ~ the appetite for images is the same but the photographer loses out on print sales as the digital images are just sent everywhere.

When you work for someone [even without pay] in this case you took her picture and gave her copies, you can't copyright her face and if any issues exist [which I doubt] it is between her and the paper.

If you had taken her picture and never gave her any and you had them on your OWN website [and not a shared site] then if she or the paper took them and used them you would have the right to expect payment from both.

As an aside, industry photographers charge large sums of money to business, €600 ~ €1,500 per hour or even much more, partly because he/she is surrendering the original product ~ the high res files today and the 5x4" or 10x8" transparencies of yesteryear.

We don't have an IMRO in the photography business, newspapers used to have different rates for news, features and advertising, you'd be given the circulation and you'd get the appropriate fees based on this, effectively you'd get a small fee each and every-time the Ad ran or the amount of copies printed and there was also a reflection on the size and location ~ happy days, also gone for the individual photographer.

You need to try and get a fee for your work and just hand over the card at the end of the shoot and walk away. Offer post processing as an extra ~ if you're good enough with the metering, sufficiently good results should keep the client happy.

You'll only ever make anything out of music by following the concerts of big bands with agency backing and all the kids buying the posters made from your pictures.

CabanSail

mehfesto wrote: »

She said she didn't know which image they'd use, but gave them clearance to use an image of her. Not sure where I stand, really. As I say, she's a good mate and I'd rather it not be an issue, but at the same time it'd be nice to have been even credited!

As the Author of the photo's you own the copyright to the images. This does not change just because you gave her copies. However the paper in this instance would make the assumption that your friend had permission to use the images, so have acted in good faith. If you make a big deal over it you may ruin that friendship. Maybe speak to her and ask if she passes them on again that you get credited.

I am sorry gbee, what you say is not correct. Just because she is in the photo's she does not have rights over the images except she can prevent their use for commercial purposes.

mehfesto

gbee wrote: »

No, you actually don't own the copy right of a person. You took her photo and gave her copies, she then sends them to the newspapers as promotion for herself.

Perfectly acceptable.

That's mental - I did not know that!
Does that mean that the model always own the image copyright of themselves?
Even in say, public street scenes?

DaireQuinlan

gbee wrote: »

No, you actually don't own the copy right of a person. You took her photo and gave her copies, she then sends them to the newspapers as promotion for herself.

Perfectly acceptable.

You will find in the music industry that they will send pictures everywhere. Back in the heydays of David Bailey he'd sell prints by the hundreds to artist, bands and so forth, it was a massive industry as each and every radio station, TV station, local, small and national newspapers would be sent a print or two [10x8" at that] ~ the appetite for images is the same but the photographer loses out on print sales as the digital images are just sent everywhere.

When you work for someone [even without pay] in this case you took her picture and gave her copies, you can't copyright her face and if any issues exist [which I doubt] it is between her and the paper.

If you had taken her picture and never gave her any and you had them on your OWN website [and not a shared site] then if she or the paper took them and used them you would have the right to expect payment from both.

As an aside, industry photographers charge large sums of money to business, €600 ~ €1,500 per hour or even much more, partly because he/she is surrendering the original product ~ the high res files today and the 5x4" or 10x8" transparencies of yesteryear.

We don't have an IMRO in the photography business, newspapers used to have different rates for news, features and advertising, you'd be given the circulation and you'd get the appropriate fees based on this, effectively you'd get a small fee each and every-time the Ad ran or the amount of copies printed and there was also a reflection on the size and location ~ happy days, also gone for the individual photographer.

You need to try and get a fee for your work and just hand over the card at the end of the shoot and walk away. Offer post processing as an extra ~ if you're good enough with the metering, sufficiently good results should keep the client happy.

You'll only ever make anything out of music by following the concerts of big bands with agency backing and all the kids buying the posters made from your pictures.

uhhh ... what ? The photographer certainly DOES own the copyright on the photographs he/she took of the artist, unless they signed some sort of agreement beforehand. Unless mehfesto actually gave her permission to do what she's done then legally she's completely in the wrong, and he could probably sue her or the IT. Or alternatively (and probably the saner approach), mark it down to experience and move on.

DaireQuinlan

mehfesto wrote: »

That's mental - I did not know that!
Does that mean that the model always own the image copyright of themselves?
Even in say, public street scenes?

No, this is not the case. Again, unless you've signed something before hand, you the photographer own the copyright on the image. There are restrictions on what you can DO with the image. Commercial usage for example isn't allowed without the sayso of the principals involved, but the copyright is yours and yours alone.

gbee

mehfesto wrote: »

That's mental - I did not know that!
Does that mean that the model always own the image copyright of themselves?
Even in say, public street scenes?

In the case of models they must sign a model release, this is signed in exchange for a fee or prints in many cases.

Now an issue could arise where you are selling the prints but she puts one of her own online and allows free downloads. There is effectively nothing you can do about it because she has the right to use her own image in her self promotion.

You won't be able to stop her.

We take this to another stage, you took her photo as part of a magazine spread to promote an upcoming charity fashion show ~ the release was signed and the fee paid over.

All fine and dandy but say 10,000 admirers start buying prints from you, she has a right to negotiate a percentage or stop you selling the images.

Some of this can be covered in the model release but it's not usually this deep. That's the sort of thing I'm referring to.

The street is very clear: you can take pictures of people and use them in newspapers and magazine as part of a news or feature story. No commercial usage is allowed. So you can't have people in your ad shots without a model release and even then, if the ad say goes to TV, more releases and more fees.

mehfesto

Cheers lads. Very helpful and informative stuff on this thread.
Where can I find all this stuff myself, to read up on? Is there a legal guide or pdf download anywhere?

CabanSail

gbee wrote: »

In the case of models they must sign a model release, this is signed in exchange for a fee or prints in many cases.

Yes. A release is a contract over the commercial use of an image.

gbee wrote: »

Now an issue could arise where you are selling the prints but she puts one of her own online and allows free downloads. There is effectively nothing you can do about it because she has the right to use her own image in her self promotion.

You won't be able to stop her.

No. Unless there is a mechanism where she has obtained licence or copyright to the image, then it remains the property of the author.

gbee wrote: »

We take this to another stage, you took her photo as part of a magazine spread to promote an upcoming charity fashion show ~ the release was signed and the fee paid over.

All fine and dandy but say 10,000 admirers start buying prints from you, she has a right to negotiate a percentage or stop you selling the images

This would all depends on what was written in the release. Generally this would be to sign across all rights for the fee which was agreed. Then that is permanent. If the release was for a specific use, medium, location or period of time then use outside of that would require another release and fee or royalties etc. So in the case of the most common form of release then no further payment is payable. If you do a shoot of someone and have a release which covers all rights and in a few years that person becomes famous, then those images may be valuable. The subject has no further claim or control on those, they belong to the photographer.

gbee

CabanSail wrote: »

No. Unless there is a mechanism where she has obtained licence or copyright to the image, then it remains the property of the author..

There has been a court ruling on this, what you say is not incorrect and the court ruling does not change this, but the model has the right to use her image in her self promotion ~ the judge took the view that it was ridiculous for the photographer to expect the model to have her photos in a drawer and take them out occasionally to just look at them herself.

The buzz word from the case was "you can't copyright a person's own face" which the judge took the view was what the photographer was in effect seeking.

I don't have a link, but it was exactly the scenario I outlined where a model put her pictures online and the photographer tried to stop her on copyright infringement.

Quite frankly you're better off paying the model and not give her any pictures at all. It's unreasonably to give her pictures and expect her not to show them off.

CabanSail

I think that this would be where the model has done TFP or TFCD work. This is where they give their time and get images in return. In that case there would exist an implied licence to use those images, but the copyright would still remain with the author.

This is getting off topic. If you can find a link it would make a good new thread. Can you seek it out?

magicbastarder

gbee wrote: »

The buzz word from the case was "you can't copyright a person's own face" which the judge took the view was what the photographer was in effect seeking.

take this to its logical conclusion and it has massive ramifications.

Sky King

Update: I've been paid for all but one of the pics - but I am expecting that money before the end of next week.

Total is region of €400 and I will be donating it to the club - maybe towards a few drinks at christmas or something.

Thanks to everyone for the help and insight, especially PC photo who gave me a few very helpful pointers.

gbee

Very well done, a result, and thanks for coming back, I had forgotten about it.

Sky King

I nearly did too until a cheque for €240 came in my door this evening

CabanSail

To be honest, that is quite cheap for them considering the immoral and illegal way that they obtained the image. It is, however, better than nothing.

How much did you ask for?

Fair dues to donate the money. Good Karma in your direction.

Sky King

I asked for €120 per pic. I was told they were worth maybe €70 each and I wanted to push it a bit and get as much money as I could albiet without asking for so much that they tell me to feck off.

i also don't want or need the hassle of litigation (though I would pursue it on principle if it came to that).

Fair dues to donate the money.

Thanks! Well, we're down a thirty thousand euro aircraft and our instructor is a bit beat up so I reckon a few pints for all concerned might take the edge off ....

Incidentally, one of the 'reporters' misread the registration of the destroyed aircraft (a D was read as an O) and the paper did a google search of the reg and by pure co-incidence, the incorrect registration belonged to an aircraft which was the same make, model and virtually the same colour as ours!

That paper ripped off an online pic of the other aircraft (which to this day is still in mechanical order to the best of my knowledge) and printed it as the one destroyed.

I tried to get in touch with the photographer telling him how to claim his €120 but he hasn't got back to me, must try him again!