Copyright - Annoyed at my Employer - DET

[kiwi]

Not really, I would look at myself and the fact that I gave the photos to the school with no strings attached and no agreement that restricted commercial or secondary use

If there is fault here it lies with all three parties and I'm still looking for and damage done or any monetary benefit that's accrued by any party

[bigdazzler]

fair enough too I suppose .... I would be more annoyed with the school though. After all, they gave away the photos. I suppose the lesson is to make sure you have your agreement sin place whenever you give your photos to someone.

[ricktas]

Not really, I would look at myself and the fact that I gave the photos to the school with no strings attached and no agreement that restricted commercial or secondary use

If there is fault here it lies with all three parties and I'm still looking for and damage done or any monetary benefit that's accrued by any party

Good point too!

[kiwi]

I'll add though that Scotty did say in his exif for within school use and I agree it's a stretch to say this is what the end result is but you could draw that bow

Not an easy one

[Boo53]

From experience, letters drafted in the early hours help to get things off your chest & let you get to sleep, but are best not being sent.

In the light of day perhaps you should re-draft the letter just pointing out that the images are yours and seeking their response. If they apologise, and claim that they were given the photos by the school and believed that the school had the ownership of them you have made your point, and it shouldn't happen again.

Going in with all guns blazing will no doubt get their back up, and if they think they are in the right it will just escalate the matter to a point where no-one will win.

The Principal is clearly the chief culprit & you've got his/her apology, which is what you originally said you were after

John R

[Scotty72]

I'll add though that Scotty did say in his exif for within school use and I agree it's a stretch to say this is what the end result is but you could draw that bow

Not an easy one

Yes the exif data should have set alarm bells off for the photographer. So should have common courtesy and a basic knowledge about copyright law (which they ought to have).

Don't feel too sorry for the photographer. All I am asking for is a small donation to a charity which they can make a tax deduction from.

A commercial enterprise should not be in the habbit of using stuff for free.

Turn this around. We staff get a free copy of our staff photo as consideration that it is we who are present to help supervise the kids for the photographer (therefore he makes money). If I were to take that photo, use that as a part of my commercial enterprise and sell that for $$$. If you were the photographer, would you simply accept that the school had given it to me therefore it is ok?

It is better they change their business practises now via a subtle warning than get into more trouble later.

Scotty

[Longshots]

Excellent letter Scotty

The school really was at fault and I'm glad that they've apologised.

OK two (sorry for the "pun") school of thoughts.

The photographer who did the dirty deed was wrong. He/she could argue that in all good faith he understood that by the school supplying your images, that they were all signed off, or had been commissioned by the school, etc, etc.

He/she could also argue that how were they to know that they were "copyrighted" and that there was no authority to use them ?

Personally I think the school is the main area of responsibility. They have agreed that they were at fault and apologised.

Would I be upset if they were my images ? Yes. Would I hand out images without a watermark though ? No

I think there is a great lesson learnt on your part. Its also a lesson learnt by your principal. Its a lesson that also needs to be learnt by the photographer.

But now put yourself in the position of the photographer who did this. You're handed a set of images from your client - you may or may not have asked if your client has the authority to use all of the images (and you did say earlier that your principal thought she had ?), and you go ahead and use them as clearly as has been organised with your principal (who has done everything else "by the book").

So I would personally probably contact the photographer in question. Speak to them and explain the situation. See what the reaction is. Is it understanding and remorseful ? Or is it a go and bother someone else. Sure you can tell them the contents of your letter. You can also explain your apparent legal basis. But they may also pass you back to your principal.

I'd be giving them the benefit of the doubt myself. Once you've enlightened them to the copyright situation in Australia, you may then find that they too would have learnt an important lesson. I think asking for a $325 contribution to a charity from what I am guessing is a small business to be too much. In my view, as one that has been on the receiving end of trying to contact a photographer who had no exif data on an image that I was given to "improve", and settled on the written acceptance of liability, and assurance that they had commissioned the image in Dubai from the supplying client (which you dont know if thats happened between the school and the photographer).


At the end of the day, people are not mind readers, and unfortunately many dont read the exif data (incorrect I know - but human) you should ensure that you have a visible watermark on images that you have not agreed on public or commercial distribution.

I'd say that the biggest win was the principals acceptance of responsibility and further apology.

[Athiril]

If you had used their camera then the copyright is theirs, but as you used your equipment I think it rests with you and if you did not give them permission to on sell your images then ask them to stop.

This is incorrect, who owns the property has no bearing on who owns the copyright, it just makes copyright ownership harder to prove.

IE: Someone else may own the camera, memory card or film negatives and electronic property, but this does not mean they own the copyright at all.

Property law and copyright law are two different things.


OP: This also violates your moral rights, on potentially more than one ground.

Not being accredited unless specified to remain anonymous is a breach of moral rights (on top of copyright infringement) - this also doesnt change even if they have copyright permission.

Moral rights can never be taken away, transferred, or signed away, or waivered.

Even though plenty of places and groups try to undemine this law - like news.com.au 's posting policy is that you waiver all moral rights - this is imposible, invalid and illegal thing for them to try and do.

[Scotty72]

Again, thanks for the feedback.

On reflection, in the cold light of day, with a calmer mind (insert more cliches) I have decided to tone my letter down to a letter that politely ask, 'what for?'

I will let the tone of their reply (or lack of) determine the tone of my next action.

I agree that the cause was probably the school but, I believe the photographer should acknowledge their part in it as well. Perhaps a polite 'mia culpa' is enough.

I will only escalate if they give me reasons... (for eg. they tell me to bugger off)

I have had an offer to help me draft the letter from amongst AP members - but I will not ID the person at this stage as I'm not sure if they want that . To that person, thanks

Scotty

[Fantasyphoto]

http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinfor...erofDemand.asp

Get some legal advice, but I'd be suing the photo company for breach of copyright.
Maybe $5,000 ?

Just send the photo company a polite letter informing them of their error and breach of copyright together with your (reasonable) invoice and you should get a very quick response.

Would you be happy with a few $$$'s and a moral victory?

[jasevk]

I think your approach with the charity donation is fantastic, Scotty... very admirable I must say I don't think the school has acted as thoroughly as it reasonably could have... and IMO the principals response about taking this up with the photographer is piss weak.

I agree to an extent that the letter may be a bit much to the photographer... but like you Scotty, I tend to wonder whether he could've produced the work without poaching your images, THAT to me is the deal breaker. So yes, I'd send a much more mild letter... but I'd be pissed that my boss didn't have the nuts to do so.

[zollo]

some employers have workplace IT policies that more or less say computers belonging to them can only be used for work purposes or have documents/programs pertaining to work. Dont know the case here but, why were the images on the schools computer in a place accessible to the school/whoever accessed them? were they marked private or protected with a password? if not, it may be reasonable to assume that whoever handed the images over may have thought that these images were part of other photos that do belong to the school.

and as for the photographer, once again I dont know the circumstances well enough, but it may have been an assistant just picking up a cd/disk with images, and possibly even working on the project, and not all assistants would be intimately familiar with copyright. again just a scenario but leaves the situation open a bit

[Scotty72]

some employers have workplace IT policies that more or less say computers belonging to them can only be used for work purposes or have documents/programs pertaining to work. Dont know the case here but, why were the images on the schools computer in a place accessible to the school/whoever accessed them? were they marked private or protected with a password? if not, it may be reasonable to assume that whoever handed the images over may have thought that these images were part of other photos that do belong to the school.

and as for the photographer, once again I dont know the circumstances well enough, but it may have been an assistant just picking up a cd/disk with images, and possibly even working on the project, and not all assistants would be intimately familiar with copyright. again just a scenario but leaves the situation open a bit

Sometimes, the line between work and personal is very fuzzy with English teachers. The syllabus requires we engage with numerous social issues of the day, we need to find songs, videos, egs of advertising etc. to use in class. So, when we read the papers / youtube / forums etc. it may well be a combination of work / social.

As stated before: I, along with many teachers (I'm sure others on here will agree), generally don't mind my work being used in school newsletters etc. We do it for the kids who love nice clear pics of themselves and I get numerous practise opportunities. However, it is a completely different matter when a private company uses this for profit.

My import into Lightroom automatically places a (c) message about school / educational / not for profit / non-commercial use unless written permission etc. into the meta-data.

Anyway, the principal (the only one autorised to release to outsiders) now is crystal clear about the issue.

Also, there seems to be an acceptable outcome.

My principal passed on an apology from the photographer.

He accepts that even if the school passes on work, he must, in future, ensure he is entitled to use it.

I accept the potential gain (zero for me) from potential further action is probably not worth the aggro it may cause.

I got (and accept) my apology, they are on notice if they do it again. So it seems, ALL GOOD!

Thanks anyway.

Scotty

[kiwi]

Sounds like an all round good outcome mate, now hit the tog up for some work, lol

[Scotty72]

Sounds like an all round good outcome mate, now hit the tog up for some work, lol

Na! I haven't finished ripping off my own eye-lashes for fun yet.

Scotty

[Longshots]

Na! I haven't finished ripping off my own eye-lashes for fun yet.

Scotty

A good outcome - all parties end up more informed, and you've received a proper apology. Good work.