Another "they are using my photo" thread.

homer simpson

I know, I know it's been done to death but my case is quite unusual so please read on and advise me if you can please (I know its a tad long but bear with me)...

I noticed a lot of activity on one of my photos on flickr around the start of the year but didn't pay much attention to it. I then (about 1 week later) received a PM on a different site (rallyforums.com where I share my photos sometimes) asking me to give this guy a ring about maybe using my photo.

I gave this guy a call the next evening and he said he wanted to use my photo, the one with all the activity on flickr, but only to use it as a facebook profile picture and for 1 post he was going to make on the forum for promoting a draw the midland motorclub were running.

I wasn't too keen on the idea at all but I was assured again and again that my photo was only going to be used for the 2 things and that's it. I said I would think about it and he sent me his e-mail address to send off the image if I agreed.

Now is where its gets messy! Same guy phoned me back an hour later to ask me could they use my photo across the board, I quickly and categorically said no he persisted saying that he would get me a media accreditation letter from the motorclub and my name would appear everywhere the photo would appear, I thought about it but then again said no again. I made the point that whatever chance they had of me allowing the use of my photo for facebook and a forum post I wasn't going to let them Print my photo. They guy was persistent and kept me on the phone for a good half hour and I just kept saying no. In the end I said I'd think about it (to get rid of him) he told me to e-mail him with the the photo and whatever letter I wanted signed for accreditation :rolleyes:, I told him it wasn't likey but I'd get back to him via e-mail if I was going to do it.

A few weeks later I see them using my photo on their facebook page and sent a message asking them to take it down as no permission was given to use it, I was told to send of a letter to the motorclub secretary and request me photo be taken down, and it will be discussed at the next meeting :eek: SO I thought it's one photo on facebook what odds.

I have since discovered my photo is being used on the tickets for the draw and all promo surrounding the draw including a video (which BTW the video makers had nothing to do with as they were supplied the artwork, I was talking to them), posters and even massive road signs for the event itself. As you can imagine I'm very peeved off!

They are now ignoring my phone calls and all e-mails I'm sending them. The most annoying thing about this whole thing is they simply right clicked and downloaded the photo from my flickr, and its only up online with a watermark on it, but they simply cropped it out or put something over it where they use it

Anyone advise me on what to do next.

P.S. This whole thing has since pushed me towards not taking photos at events anymore I used to love it but why bother when ya get this hassle like, I'm no pro photographer I do it for the craic of it!

CabanSail

Send them an invoice for each individual use of the image. Make it very substantial. Give them 14 days to pay.

.Longshanks.

CabanSail wrote: »

Send them an invoice for each individual use of the image. Make it very substantial. Give them 14 days to pay.

Dear Sir/Madam,

With regards to your unauthorised reproduction of my photographs - screenshots attached for your reference . As I am sure you are aware, no permission was sought for the usage, nor was any compensation for its licence agreed between you and I, therefore you are in breach of copyright.

As such, please consider this an invoice for your past usage of these images, as well as any further usage of these images as part of any reporting of this event in the future.

The invoice breaks down as follows.

Past and future usage of the images : €150
Fee for unauthorised usage: €150, as a penalty charge
Total: €300

In addition I also require the images are credited to Homer Simpson

Payment is due no later than 30 days of the date of this email, and should be paid via Paypal made payable to ********@********* If you require an invoice one can be provided.

Should payment not be made within 30 days, the unauthorised usage fee will double to €300, and action will be taken in the courts to recover this sum.

No further correspondance will be entered into regarding
this matter.

Sincerely

Homer Simpson

Kenny Logins

That's unbelievable. Blatant theft.

BengaLover

Start watermarking all your images, although some people know how to edit that out.
Get the domain information of the sites its on through WhoIs and contact them too.

Kenny Logins

BengaLover wrote: »

Start watermarking all your images, although some people know how to edit that out.
Get the domain information of the sites its on through WhoIs and contact them too.

It was watermarked, but cropped out.

BengaLover

Badness!
Go here and use this to find out who to go to with this.
They may take you seriously if they know that you know who they are and where they are, http://www.whois.net/

Kenny Logins

It's on the front page of their site in another advert.

http://www.midlandmotorclub.com/

homer simpson

Cheers folks,

I'm getting more and more annoyed about it the more I think on it because most of the stuff with my photo on it has appeared since I got on to them on facebook, so they knew they weren't allowed to use it and knew I didn't approve of them using it but went ahead an used it anyway.

Sending of the letter / invoice seems to be the way to go, thanks a million for that Kevin I might just fire that one off.

It really has put a dampener on things for me and put me right off taking photo's which is a shame because I did enjoy doing it, I have found a few of my photo's being used online before now, with them I just simply e-mailed them and they removed it, which I was happy enough with TBH. But this instance just takes the biscuit

dirtyghettokid

such bad form!! let us know how you get on. i'm keen to know how they will respond to your letter!
it's really annoying how people think because an image is on the internet, it's a free license to use it in any way.

i worked as a graphic designer for years, and alot of the time there is no budget for stock photos. when you ask the manager/boss "what will i do for images?" you are told to take them off the internet.
i never did this, but i was told to do it many times. :mad:

OldGoat

kev_Longshanks100 wrote: »

Dear Sir/Madam,

With regards to your unauthorised reproduction of my photographs - screenshots attached for your reference . As I am sure you are aware, no permission was sought for the usage permission was sought but not given, nor was any compensation for its licence agreed between you and I, therefore you are in breach of copyright...

Wonder if their persistence to get you to sign over rights was because they had already sent the image to the printers and only had only then copped on that they had no rights to it.

CabanSail

I think that in the circumstances €300 would be quite a low amount. Personally I would have been asking an order of magnitude higher.

Kenny Logins

OldGoat wrote: »

Wonder if their persistence to get you to sign over rights was because they had already sent the image to the printers and only had only then copped on that they had no rights to it.

They were selling tickets as far back as January 10th -

https://www.facebook.com/events/230954753647658/

Zillah

God, stuff like this really makes me angry. You must have a friend of a friend or a distant relative who is a lawyer, get them to send a letter on your behalf demanding payment - you'd be amazed at how seriously people take things as soon as a lawyer gets involved in any way. We spent months trying to get NTL to stop billing us for a service we never had and they ignored all correspondence, until eventually we sent a lawyer's letter and they resolved it straight away.

Sue sue sue. Play hard ball. They'll walk all over you unless you really stand up to them.

So angry at how blatant they are being. Although them being so blatant also plays in your favour as a judge would rule completely in your favour without any doubts.

tricky D

CabanSail wrote: »

I think that in the circumstances €300 would be quite a low amount. Personally I would have been asking an order of magnitude higher.

What's the GettyImages amount? $1000? I'd at least double the €300.

homer simpson

Surprise surprise I got a message on facebook there half an hour ago after sending the e-mail, they are trying to say I agreed to let them use the photo on the phone in exchange for a letter for payment. Which is bullcrap!

If I had agreed to let them use it I would have sent them off a photo but I didn't they had to "download" it from my flickr page and crop out the watermark :rolleyes:

tricky D wrote: »

What's the GettyImages amount? $1000? I'd at least double the €300.

Honestly it isn't about a sum of money I just think what they have done is real real sh!tty and if I let them get away with it once they are sure to do it again and again, I don't want that happening:(

pixbyjohn

OldGoat wrote: »

Wonder if their persistence to get you to sign over rights was because they had already sent the image to the printers and only had only then copped on that they had no rights to it.

Exactly my thoughts too

PCPhoto

homer_simpson .... get yourself to a solicitor and ask if they have any experience in copyright law,

Get your solicitor to send them a solicitors letter - outlining that they have used the images illegally and without permission and as such must pay licence fee's/compensation and legal fees.

if they reply - you respond threatening legal action ...and take legal action - from what you've said there is nothing on their side to prove any claims of authorisation....and you have proof of unusually high activity on your flickr and proof they are using your image (minus watermark).

you will have to pay (upfront) for the solicitors fees for a letter (which can very from €150+ higher) ... but you do get this money back once they pay out - if they are stupid enough to let it goto court there is a risk you may not win - but if the case is argued properly and correctly the judge will more than likely fall in your favour and grant payment and compensation which could be several thousand.

(I work in the civil court on a daily basis and chat with barristers/solicitors regularly)

the_syco

homer_simpson wrote: »

I just think what they have done is real real sh!tty and if I let them get away with it once they are sure to do it again and again, I don't want that happening:(

And again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and so forth.

You come down hard on them the first time, or they'll know your threats don't carry water.

Do as PCPhoto said; he knows about these things.

=-=

As for them using your photo from your flickr account, I've read of a few bloggers replacing the image that was used on anther site without their permission with a goatse picture (do not google this word from work, it's very NSFW).

As goatse most likely violates flickrs T&Cs, I'd advise getting a picture that is allowed by flicker, but which would offend all of the people who visit the site (that has stolen your image).

tricky D

the_syco wrote: »

As for them using your photo from your flickr account, I've read of a few bloggers replacing the image that was used on anther site without their permission with a goatse picture (do not google this word from work, it's very NSFW).

http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1011 (safe for work but with link to VNSFW goatse)

...is the story where Jason Scott had a 'cool' picture of the Grim Reaper which wasn't just downloaded but hotlinked stealing his bandwidth too. Worse was the bit where a MySpace template maker put it in one of their templates, again hotlinked, not even properly stolen. So he did a swaperoo with goatse and hilarity ensued.

the_syco

tricky D wrote: »

http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1011 (safe for work but with link to VNSFW goatse)

That was indeed the story I was thinking of, but just couldn't find it

sineadw

Yup - considering the theft 300 is far too low. I'd be asking 1000 minimum. If they've got massive posters, there's a budget.

PCPhoto

sineadw wrote: »

Yup - considering the theft 300 is far too low. I'd be asking 1000 minimum. If they've got massive posters, there's a budget.

(sorry ...have to !!)

Size doesn't matter !! - no matter what the size of the posters - the are spending money on promoting the event - if you are fast and want to get money fast - goto a solicitor, tell them send a letter or you will goto the high court to get an injunction preventing them using your image in their promotion - which they will be liable for costs....its all fairly straight forward - you will have to pay out first - but costs *should* be recouped.

*= not legal advice, costs may take years to recover all depends on the group and stubbornness of individuals and how they are covered/represented legally.

EyeBlinks

PCPhoto wrote: »

you will goto the high court to get an injunction preventing them using your image in their promotion

Recipe for disaster and to be seriously out of pocket at the end.

Kenny Logins

Seems odd that they have made no effort to remove the image, it's still on that advert on the front of the website...

PCPhoto

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Recipe for disaster and to be seriously out of pocket at the end.

Can you explain how its a recipe for disaster and how it will cost serious money - you do realise that a lay litigent (normal unqualified person) can go before the courts and ask the judge for an interim injunction on an ex-parte matter....he/she would only have to inform the court clerk and stand before the court explaining why they are asking for the injunction - the judge would decide if the matter is returnable and would grant/deny the injunction - its not too complicated.

hardly going to cost the earth to have the matter heard - the matter of urgency is easy to argue as the other party would be in breach of the law and allowing them to continue advertising while in breach of the law would be detrimental to the cause, quick return date and legal costs if any would be forced on the other party assuming the court finds in your favour (which in this case seems fairly open and shut - given the details we have been given)

* - this is not a legal opinion, I am not legally trained.

sineadw

Jeez pc, for someone not giving legal advice, you're fierce good at giving legal advice

runawaybishop

report them for using your intellectual property on facebook also.

EyeBlinks

PCPhoto wrote: »

Can you explain how its a recipe for disaster .

It's rather like getting a pick axe to shell a peanut.... usually very little nut left .;);)

Tallon

Holy crap, that is the worst CC I have seen

Deffo get on to a solicitor!

PCPhoto

sineadw wrote: »

Jeez pc, for someone not giving legal advice, you're fierce good at giving legal advice

we're not allowed to give out legal advice on boards.

EyeBlinks

PCPhoto wrote: »

we're not allowed to give out legal advice on boards.

That never stopped you :pac:

PCPhoto

and there was me thinking I was giving my opinion and advice ...as for the OP, I've mentioned twice now that I think he should goto a solicitor and seek advice on it - the same as others have given.

DeVore

Solicitors letters cost bugger all. Get one sent.

Courts will also assign your costs to them if its blatant, which this seems to be.

They have no written permission. No proof of anything.

This would fall under the small claims court which is designed for this sort of minor (in the greater scheme of things) claim. High court talk is a bit OTT... you can action this quite straightforwardly.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Seek the advice of a professional.

Saint_Mel

Was driving through Roscommon today and happened to notice one of the signs just off the roundabout at Heatons/KFC

Mylow

Might be worth contacting the event sponsors, last thing they will want is there image being tarnished by association. I noticed ticket has Garda permit number, might be worth dropping them a line saying they have issued tickets which infringes copyright.

PCPhoto

The gardai have not issued tickets.....the organisers have ...and the organisers claim to have gotten permission - yet they have no proof of permission, best course of action here is goto a solicitor and initiate legal action - at least that way the photographer gets "paid" for their image and the organisers learn that an image online is not a free image - it is the copyright of the photographer (unless the copyright is purchased)

homer simpson

Thanks for all the help / advise folks, very much appreciated.

Went the legal route after they more or less laughed at me when I got in contact with them and told them to stop using it, the letter was sent at the end of last week. Have today been told by the club chairman on the phone that I am the one in the wrong and should have asked permission from the driver of the car before putting a watermark on the photo, lol. I reminded him that I was in a public place when the photo was taken and told him to discuss it with my solicitor, and said bye!

Phoned my solicitor then and explained the call who said they would look into what they were saying and get back to me :eek:

At the end of the day the club are just laughing at me and trying any angle they can to wriggle out of it, I won't be letting it ly anyway.

dirtyghettokid

that's awful! very ignorant behaviour on their behalf. i hope you get somewhere with the solicitor now!

EyeBlinks

homer_simpson wrote: »

Phoned my solicitor then and explained the call who said they would look into what they were saying and get back to me :eek:

Sounds like you need a new solicitor!

homer simpson

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Sounds like you need a new solicitor!

That thought had crossed my mind TBH but I'll wait to see what they say.

EyeBlinks

I could recommend someone. Used be a member here. Expert in this kinda thing.

magicbastarder

homer_simpson wrote: »

should have asked permission from the driver of the car before putting a watermark on the photo, lol.

digging himself into a hole; if it was wrong of you to take the photo without the driver's permission, it's somehow ok for them to use it in a commercial context?

AnCatDubh

homer_simpson wrote: »

Phoned my solicitor then and explained the call who said they would look into what they were saying and get back to me :eek:

I don't want to add to your misery here, but the phone call to a solicitor should be along the lines of;

you: "hello solicitor"
solicitor: "yes",
you: "do you know s*** about copyright infringement"
solicitor: "just let me look that up",
you: "i'll call you back"

See what contacts may come to you through recommendations here and give them a call.

Sorry for your troubles.

EyeBlinks

homer_simpson wrote: »

That thought had crossed my mind TBH but I'll wait to see what they say.

Message sent, but can't see it in my outbox. Pls confirm if received.

homer simpson

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Message sent, but can't see it in my outbox. Pls confirm if received.

Got it and replied, thanks

Mylow

PCPhoto wrote: »

The gardai have not issued tickets.....the organisers have ...and the organisers claim to have gotten permission - yet they have no proof of permission, best course of action here is goto a solicitor and initiate legal action - at least that way the photographer gets "paid" for their image and the organisers learn that an image online is not a free image - it is the copyright of the photographer (unless the copyright is purchased)

I know they didn't issue the tickets, what I meant is they authorised the sale of the tickets. It might make it bit more difficult next time round if the Gardai are aware of copyright dispute. Bet it's same Garda who deals with tickets/raffles etc.

magicbastarder

the gardai won't get involved. it's a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Splinters

Sorry to hear about your troubles. These copyright infringement posts are frustrating to read at the best of times but when they guilty party are doing it so blatantly with so little regard for the photographer its all the more infuriating. Fingers crossed for a good outcome on this one.

challengemaster

CabanSail wrote: »

I think that in the circumstances €300 would be quite a low amount. Personally I would have been asking an order of magnitude higher.

Considering the mass-reproduction of the copyrighted material involved here, I'd be tacking on an extra 0 at the end of that, €3k minimum.

CabanSail

Get advice from the Solicitor as to the amount you will charge for the image.

Things to remember are;

• The Image was not for sale.
• This image has been widely reproduced.
• Image is being utilised for multiple uses.
• The price should reflect both the usage and have a punitive element.
• The price should also reflect that they knew that permission was NOT granted and they still proceeded.
• Humilitation by being laughed at on the phone.

They can always argue you down but it's difficult for you to increase the price. Having already used the image it is like having an order with the price blank.