View Full Version : MY IMAGE STOLEN AND USED IN AN ONLINE NEWSPAPER! what do I do?
Danielle10
12-12-2011, 9:12pm
Look at this I am mortified!!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2072587/Monty-hopes-Springsteen-turn-help-rock-England.html
what do I do??? Is there anything I can do??
I did have this message sent to me on fb the other day:
hi Danielle...I work for a newspaper in London and we would like to do a piece about Monty Panesar being picked for the England Test squad and we'd like to use your pic of him with the Mike Whitney Band....would that be OK....??
also you wouldn't have any of him singing would you..?/
any help much appreciated..Many thanks..Jack
98kellrs
12-12-2011, 9:20pm
What do you want done? Do you want them to pay for it, do you want to be creditted for the image or do you want it removed from the site?
William
12-12-2011, 9:23pm
Tell them they have breached Copyright, And is now in the hands of your Lawyer , Jack should have asked first
magrose
12-12-2011, 9:27pm
So they acknowledged Reuters and Getty but not yours. Pretty poor.
ricktas
12-12-2011, 9:39pm
Send them a demand for £2000.00 saying they breached your copyright. The DailyMail is a big newspaper with a massive readership. Take screen grabs etc, so that if they remove it, you have proof it was there.
Xenedis
12-12-2011, 9:43pm
Do what I did when some company in the US decided to use one of my images in an unauthorised manner on its site.
The email I sent:
Hello.
It has come to my attention that your company has used one of my images as a promotional image on your Web site without my permission.
The image in question is the following:
<URL removed>
Linked from this page:
<URL removed>
I am the original photographer of that image.
Please remove this image from your site. I did not authorise its use, and it is not intended for commercial use.
Failure to remove the image within 72 hours will result in an invoice of $AU 5,000 for the use of my image.
Thank you.
The reply I received less than 24 hours later:
Hello,
We apologize for the unauthorized use of your photo. Thank you for
bringing it to our attention.
I have removed it from our blog post:
<URL removed>
Sincerely,
<name removed>
Director of Content Development
<company name removed>
Perhaps invoices scare people more than lawyers do.
They knew what they were doing. They cropped out you're copyright watermark. Grubs. :angry0:
As Rick said, "Take screen grabs etc, so that if they remove it, you have proof it was there."
Then you have time to contemplate what action to take.
ElectricImages
12-12-2011, 11:24pm
The Daily Mail is a particularly nasty, unethical and unscrupulous newspaper. Because of this, I would send an invoice for a couple of thousand pounds and a demand for payment. If it were another paper I might suggest otherwise, but frankly, in this case, the Daily Mail deserves any kind of walloping anyone can dish to them. :)
If they have cropped out your watermark and then used it, that right there proves intent. The Getty and Reuters acknowledgements are there because they;
A) Probably paid for those images and it is a condition of use that the watermarks stay
B) Know the relationship would be soured if they removed the watermarks and it may have lasting effect on their ability to get images going forward
Where was it taken from? Flickr?
peterb666
13-12-2011, 12:49am
It is a pretty low trick to take an image and crop out the identification mark, that is nothing other than outright theft.
Xenedis
13-12-2011, 12:54am
It is a pretty low trick to take an image and crop out the identification mark, that is nothing other than outright theft.
Not to downplay Danielle's situation, but it's actually not theft; it's copyright infringement, an altogether different concept in terms of what happens, as well as the criminal vs. civil liability associated with it.
I certainly agree with you that it is a very low act.
Danielle10
13-12-2011, 1:03am
Well I have emailed them with some help from a friend who knows this stuff, so will see what happens.
I suppose I should be flattered that they took my image lol. Gotta look on the bright side ey?
Xenedis
13-12-2011, 1:17am
Well I have emailed them with some help from a friend who knows this stuff, so will see what happens.
I suppose I should be flattered that they took my image lol. Gotta look on the bright side ey?
I hope you achieve a satisfactory outcome.
It certainly is confronting to see your image used in an unauthorised manner, especially when done commercially.
In my case, I've had my images used in an unauthorised manner on three occasions (that I knew about).
On the first occasion, I had the site wiped off the grid.
On the second, the offender was some kid who didn't know it wasn't right to do what he did, and he removed the image.
The third case was the example I mentioned earlier in this thread.
I have no doubt whatsoever that my images have been used in an unauthorised manner on many more occasions, but the Internet is a big place and I cannot chase down all of the offenders.
From my limited experience, mentioning the Copyright Act 1968, establishing yourself as the copyright holder and mentioning invoices have all been effective methods.
Just do yourself a favour and don't mention lawyers or legal action. The reality is that legal action is extremely expensive and time-consuming (and thus unapproachable for most of us) and won't be taken seriously by anyone unless a letterhead from a solicitor actually arrives, and for that to have happened you'd need to have invested money on something that may be a lost cause, whereby the cure is worse than the disease.
peterb666
13-12-2011, 7:20am
Not to downplay Danielle's situation, but it's actually not theft; it's copyright infringement, an altogether different concept in terms of what happens, as well as the criminal vs. civil liability associated with it.
I certainly agree with you that it is a very low act.
Copyright infringement IS theft. It is taking the intellectual (and in this case also the artistic) property of someone else and using it without their permission. In this instance it involves defacing the image to cover up the crime, like repainting a stolen car.
Now they have acknowledged the theft send the invoice.
fillum
13-12-2011, 12:54pm
I am not a lawyer yada yada...
I think a key factor here is the "uniqueness" of your image, an image that has given them their angle for the story (it pretty much is the story). In contrast, the Reuters/Getty images would probably be not much different to loads of others which have been widely seen before.
I'd be chasing them pretty hard. Good luck with it...
Cheers.
Xenedis, your situation where you asked them to withdraw the image, wouldn't it have been better just to send them an invoice with the letter and say "you have used my image without permission, here is my invoice" - seems all they had to do was remove it and they didnt pay you compensation ?
Mongo does not understand the stupidity of someone asking you for permission and then proceeding regardless of the answer (or in this case , no answer i.e no permission). Perhaps, in this case, it could be seen an intentional act to use your material regardless of permission. Certainly, not waiting for written permission or otherwise and the removal of your copyright mark are strong evidence of this.
Mongo agrees that the whole story is propped up by your image – the other images are very peripheral at best. Newspapers Publishers make profit from selling newspapers – that is their goal. Mongo would think that a breach of copyright (which this appears to be) might give rise to an action for injunction (if the breach is ongoing) and or civil damages. It is unlikely an injunction would be granted where monetary damages are capable of satisfying the breach.
Not suggesting you do any of this stuff. However, in short, you may very well be entitled to more than a mere acknowledgement or apology. You may be entitled to a share of the profits by seeking the correct monetary compensation i.e the worth of the use of your photo to them.
Additionally, the big newspaper “news of the World” enquiry and fallout from that is under way in Britain. This is just another example of unethical practices that you might bring to the attention of the relevant Minister over there. This may in turn place more measurable pressure on these people to do the right thing to avoid further unwanted scrutiny on their part at this time and simply pay you what they should have.
Few things I'm also interested in
where did Danielle state she used a watermark ?
where was he source image originally sourced from ?
was the metadata intact ?
peterb666
13-12-2011, 1:28pm
Few things I'm also interested in
where did Danielle state she used a watermark ?
where was he source image originally sourced from ?
was the metadata intact ?
The original image was placed on facebook and contains Danielle's signature. That has been cropped off the bottom of the image.
Danielle got a message on facebook requesting use of the image - see original post. Without reply, the image was taken, altered, used without credit to the photographer and without consent or payment.
did she tag it to Monty or something ?
Im just interested in how they came to find the image - and the OP didnt really mention any of that background data unless I missed it somehow
Dylan & Marianne
13-12-2011, 4:53pm
How did you find out that they were using your image Danielle? it's something something I get paranoid about from time to time but have no idea how it gets found out unless someone else happens to spot the image
Danielle10
13-12-2011, 5:22pm
did she tag it to Monty or something ?
Im just interested in how they came to find the image - and the OP didnt really mention any of that background data unless I missed it somehow
I am very curious as to how they found the image, I messaged monty last night and he said he knew nothing about it. I m thinking thats crap as he has quoted something in the story!!!
The original image was placed on facebook and contains Danielle's signature. That has been cropped off the bottom of the image.
Danielle got a message on facebook requesting use of the image - see original post. Without reply, the image was taken, altered, used without credit to the photographer and without consent or payment.
One of the many reasons I won't use social media sites. If the above is true, then it just shows how easy it is to get information, images etc about the people who use them and don't lock them down in privacy settings. Sydney media did exactly the same thing (sourced images of a young girl from both hers, and her friends FB pages) to bolster their stories earlier this year. That is in addition to Mr Zuckerberg selling everything else about you from the back of house...
Danielle10
13-12-2011, 5:23pm
How did you find out that they were using your image Danielle? it's something something I get paranoid about from time to time but have no idea how it gets found out unless someone else happens to spot the image
Dylan, My dad told me about it and said that mike had emailed him the link. Ive just messaged mike about it but will be seeing him on friday hopefully to get more out of this. aaargh! Im a bit annoyed
Danielle10
13-12-2011, 5:26pm
One of the many reasons I won't use social media sites. If the above is true, then it just shows how easy it is to get information, images etc about the people who use them and don't lock them down in privacy settings. Sydney media did exactly the same thing (sourced images of a young girl from both hers, and her friends FB pages) to bolster their stories earlier this year. That is in addition to Mr Zuckerberg selling everything else about you from the back of house...
everything on my fb account is private - you cant see it unless you are a friend of mine. so im guessing the "leak" is mike and/or monty
Xenedis
13-12-2011, 5:45pm
Copyright infringement IS theft.
No, it isn't.
Theft is the unlawful removal of someone's property with intent to permanently deprive the lawful owner of that property.
It is taking the intellectual (and in this case also the artistic) property of someone else and using it without their permission.
That is copyright infringement, not theft.
In this instance it involves defacing the image to cover up the crime, like repainting a stolen car.
The crucial difference is that Danielle still has her image; it has not been removed from her possession.
Her rights as a copyright holder have been breached.
Xenedis
13-12-2011, 5:48pm
Xenedis, your situation where you asked them to withdraw the image, wouldn't it have been better just to send them an invoice with the letter and say "you have used my image without permission, here is my invoice" - seems all they had to do was remove it and they didnt pay you compensation ?
I achieved what I set out to achieve.
An image of mine, which was never intended for commercial usage and appeared on an organisation's Web site, was removed.
I didn't want compensation; I wanted my image removed, as:
I didn't authorise its usage; and
the image in question was not intended for commercial usage at all.
peterb666
13-12-2011, 7:42pm
That is copyright infringement, not theft.
I guess these guys have got it wrong... Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (http://www.afact.org.au/)
Image Theft Is a Crime (http://www.eventphotos.com.au/news/image-theft-is-a-crime/)
UPDATE COPYRIGHT THEFT: PETER BROWNE VS RATTLE N HUM CAIRNS
(http://www.artforum.com.au/vtopic26701.html)
Xenedis
13-12-2011, 9:00pm
I guess these guys have got it wrong...
Unfortunately they have -- at least in their use of terms like 'theft' and 'stolen', which have a different legal meaning to copyright infringement.
Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (http://www.afact.org.au/)
Given that stealing (or theft) is the taking of one's property with the intent to permanently deprive the lawful owner of that property, I'm not sure how you can 'steal copyright' or be guilty of 'copyright theft' when copyright is a legal right, not a tangible asset; and when theft refers to removal of one's property, not the infringing upon someone's legal right to control copying and distribution of non-tangible content.
Your copyright can be infringed, but it cannot be removed from your possession.
Image Theft Is a Crime (http://www.eventphotos.com.au/news/image-theft-is-a-crime/)
In this article the author has used the terms 'stolen' and 'image theft', which unfortunately have been incorrectly used.
UPDATE COPYRIGHT THEFT: PETER BROWNE VS RATTLE N HUM CAIRNS
(http://www.artforum.com.au/vtopic26701.html)
The above article is about a specific case of copyright violation. Just because the author uses the word 'stolen' does not make the act of copyright infringement an act of theft. They are completely different things.
You'll find that it is quite common for people to use terms like "image theft", "stole my work", "stole my copyright", etc., but the terminology is unfortunately erroneous.
That being said, here are some URLs for you to read:
Is Copyright Violation Stealing?
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/04/is_copyright_vi.html
Intellectual Property Law: Is copyright infringement a kind of theft?
http://www.quora.com/Intellectual-Property-Law/Is-copyright-infringement-a-kind-of-theft
From the latter URL:
If one answers the question from a strictly legal point of view, copyright infringement is clearly not theft. It is a violation of one or more specific statutes, none of which define said violation as theft. In general, the legal definition of theft involves the unauthorized taking of another's property. Even though we use the phrase Intellectual Property rather casually, making a copy of a protected work does not involve taking that property - it involves violating the owners right to control copying of the property.
(Bold text is as per the source article; underlined text appears in italics in the source article.)
Danielle10
13-12-2011, 9:28pm
Regardless of whether it's stolen, theft whatever!
It's still not right and I haven't had a response so I'm really peeved!
Sorry guys – too much time is being spent on semantics. There is no doubt it is at least an infringement of copyright. It would be difficult to be a theft or stolen in strict legal terms.
However, for the purposes of this discussion, it does not really matter. In either case, it involves someone taking (or even borrowing) something without the owner’s permission (for personal gain) and the owner is entitled to be compensated and for the user to stop using it. As such it looks more a civil case (than a criminal case which might have attracted police attention). Also, in either case, we would all be just as appalled whatever you call it.
Mongo would be very interested to see what happens if Danielle would like to let us know in due course.
PS - Kiwi might know if there is a governing body for journalists re standards or ethics in Britain which could be written to as well
Xenedis
13-12-2011, 9:34pm
Regardless of whether it's stolen, theft whatever!
It's still not right and I haven't had a response so I'm really peeved!
Completely understandable.
The definition of what happened doesn't diminish the resulting bad feelings yourself and others have experienced.
It's absolutely not right, and as per an earlier post, I hope you can have the matter resolved to your satisfaction.
Ezookiel
13-12-2011, 9:44pm
I thought I read that putting a photo on Facebook gave THEM the rights over the image, and is in fact one of the big complaints about Facebook, so once it is there, then the newspaper theoretically only needed THEIR permission to use it and not yours.
But FB may have since changed their terms, but I doubt it.
Mark L
13-12-2011, 10:05pm
everything on my fb account is private - you cant see it unless you are a friend of mine. so im guessing the "leak" is mike and/or monty
In post #7 I said "They cropped out you're copyright watermark." I knew this 'case I found the image through the link in your signature.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniellesheehan/sets/72157627330612991/
fb account may be private, but I wouldn't accuse anyone of leaking (just yet).
ricktas
13-12-2011, 10:15pm
In post #7 I said "They cropped out you're copyright watermark." I knew this 'case I found the image through the link in your signature.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniellesheehan/sets/72157627330612991/
fb account may be private, but I wouldn't accuse anyone of leaking (just yet).
Hehehe. and guess who has access to Flickr...GETTY! Read the Flickr/Getty T&C:
http://www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/
So if you have said yes to Getty on your Flickr account Danielle, that is probably how they got it
Roosta
13-12-2011, 10:19pm
Look at this I am mortified!!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2072587/Monty-hopes-Springsteen-turn-help-rock-England.html
what do I do??? Is there anything I can do??
I did have this message sent to me on fb the other day:
hi Danielle...I work for a newspaper in London and we would like to do a piece about Monty Panesar being picked for the England Test squad and we'd like to use your pic of him with the Mike Whitney Band....would that be OK....??
also you wouldn't have any of him singing would you..?/
any help much appreciated..Many thanks..Jack
Hope it all work sout for you.
regardless of the Fb and Flickr/Getty links the OP still owns copyright and the paper is still in the wrong
ricktas
13-12-2011, 10:27pm
regardless of the Fb and Flickr/Getty links the OP still owns copyright and the paper is still in the wrong
Agree, but it is worthwhile pointing out the T&C of some of these sites, that allow them to use your photo (for any purpose), and that by uploading, or ticking a box, you are agreeing to it.
Agree, but it is worthwhile pointing out the T&C of some of these sites, that allow them to use your photo (for any purpose), and that by uploading, or ticking a box, you are agreeing to it.
But that does not allow others to use the photo does it?
Roosta
13-12-2011, 10:32pm
Hehehe. and guess who has access to Flickr...GETTY! Read the Flickr/Getty T&C:
http://www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/
So if you have said yes to Getty on your Flickr account Danielle, that is probably how they got it
Thanks for the T&C link Rick, must be preset to let Getty straight in.
ricktas
13-12-2011, 10:45pm
But that does not allow others to use the photo does it?
Depends on the exact wording of the T&C. Ausphotography's is this:
[25] You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services provided by Ausphotography. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Ausphotography a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Ausphotography to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in site rules.
[26] You agree that this license includes a right for Ausphotography to make such Content available to other companies, organisations or individuals with whom Ausphotography has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services. Eg. Ausphotography makes content available via tapatalk (mobile device interface) and other such applications.
Which means you allow me (AP) to use your photo simply to allow it to be displayed to other users over the net, and nothing more. You just licence it to AP so that it can be distributed to others, when they view a thread etc.
But often the T&C allows the site owners/competition organisers, the right to use any information/photos etc, in any way they wish, including selling it to other parties. Which is why we often see threads on AP about T&C.
fillum
13-12-2011, 10:51pm
The flickr image shows "All rights reserved" (not that it would necessarily stop anyone taking it). My bet is that the image was pulled off the band's fb page. Someone gets word of Monty doing a bit of singing, band's fb would be the first place to look...
Cheers.
arthurking83
13-12-2011, 11:56pm
......
But often the T&C allows the site owners/competition organisers, the right to use any information/photos etc, in any way they wish, including selling it to other parties. Which is why we often see threads on AP about T&C.
One of the reasons I've never opened an FB page myself.
I've had numerous request from friends to join and show my photos on FB and after reading their T&C's I closed the join up page without hesitation.
I've since pointed them to other sites(including AP) where they can view my images.
Deviant Art have much better image useage T&C's as far as I'm aware, where you can specifically limit how the images(or art) can be used.
Same deal with uploading images to GoogleMaps, where any point of a Google Map can be pointed too, and various images will display of that particular point of interest.
I have thousands upon thousands of images of various locations around the state and a few of around a limited area of other states, that'd be great to have display on GoogleMaps, but their T&C's put me off.
unlimited and unrestricted use of images is not an option.
if the images on FB(even tho they're private) and Flickr can be used by those parties that control those respective sites in any manner they wish, I'd say Danielle's chances for resolving the matter to her satisfaction are pretty slim.
From FB's T&C's:
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
When you use an application, your content and information is shared with the application. We require applications to respect your privacy, and your agreement with that application will control how the application can use, store, and transfer that content and information. (To learn more about Platform, read our Privacy Policy and Platform Page.)
When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).
All this Monty chap had to do was ask FB to use the image, even if it weren't on the Flickr site.
if they allow him to use it, then that's that. no recourse available to the OP.
Because I haven't got a FB account, what is this privacy and application settings??
If you set your account to private, does this automagically set all images to private/no use by FB at all?
With dA, when you upload any IP, you have settings available to make the piece available or limited in the use of it by others, or dA.
peterb666
14-12-2011, 12:53am
arthurking83, I think you are extending the conditions of facebook well beyond what they are and making an assumption that facebook give away copyright to others.
Do I retain the copyright and other legal rights to material I upload to Facebook?
Yes, you retain the copyright to your content. When you upload your content, you grant us a license to use and display that content. For more information please visit our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which contain information about intellectual property, as well as your privileges and responsibilities as a Facebook user.
https://www.facebook.com/help/?page=211911528839661
The conditions you have cited are primarly those that are to protect facebook's rear end. Facebook is a social content sharing site which explains why those conditions are there. Most blog sites that allow reblogging have similar T&Cs. That still doesn't give someone the right to take an image and use it for commercial gain.
All the T&C from FB, Flickr etc that permit the operators to use your IP is what turns me off. That's why I have my own hosting, on my own platform, where I decide who sees what and when.
Danielle10
14-12-2011, 7:00am
I have just received a MSG from the guy on fb saying "oh it's a shame u didn't get back to me earlier we could of used a picture of him singing.
What difference dies it make?? They still took my photo and removed my name. Regardless of t&cs you can't do that!
The guy also said that he got it from the bands fb page. He also asked for my banking details and an address... Hmmm I'm not to sure! Shouldn't he just send a chq???
Anyway I'll chat to my friend who is helping me with this.
Thanks all for your advice, it helps ALOT.
I Spose now all my images are going to have a great big dirty watermark across the whole image from now on!
peterb666
14-12-2011, 7:36am
All the T&C from FB, Flickr etc that permit the operators to use your IP is what turns me off. That's why I have my own hosting, on my own platform, where I decide who sees what and when.
If they cannot use your IP they cannot display your work. Wouldn't that turn everyone off?
peterb666
14-12-2011, 7:42am
I have just received a MSG from the guy on fb saying "oh it's a shame u didn't get back to me earlier we could of used a picture of him singing.
What difference dies it make?? They still took my photo and removed my name. Regardless of t&cs you can't do that!
The guy also said that he got it from the bands fb page. He also asked for my banking details and an address... Hmmm I'm not to sure! Shouldn't he just send a chq???
Anyway I'll chat to my friend who is helping me with this.
Thanks all for your advice, it helps ALOT.
I Spose now all my images are going to have a great big dirty watermark across the whole image from now on!
Send him an invoice for the use of the photo that was published on their site with payment to be made into your Paypal account. I wouldn't give him your bank account details.
When pricing the work, make shure you include a separate charge for altering using and your work without your permission and include a screen capture.
Send him an invoice for the use of the photo that was published on their site with payment to be made into your Paypal account. I wouldn't give him your bank account details.
also never send an invoice for payment without a date by which it must be paid ! Mongo would pick a date (which is between 7 to 10 days away) and specify that date on your invoice as the date by which payment must be made.
Danielle10
14-12-2011, 9:56am
also never send an invoice for payment without a date by which it must be paid ! Mongo would pick a date (which is between 7 to 10 days away) and specify that date on your invoice as the date by which payment must be made.
I don't have an Abn or anything like that tho.
What should I charge them? There's a new lens I would like and it's about $1800- surely thats fair lol
You don't need an ABN, give them your bank details (i cant see a corporate using paypal) mock up an invoice, and yes, $1800 is fair.
Longshots
14-12-2011, 11:54am
if you want to find out whats fair go and check the cost of using an image from Getty - its that simple.
However - there is a cost for useage and in this case there would also be an additional cost for the breach of copyright.
Itemise the two.
Make the breach of copyright charge a reasonable cost.
It would be important to check where they sourced the image from.
You havent explained if you responded to the original enquiry from the Daily Mail
I did have this message sent to me on fb the other day:
hi Danielle...I work for a newspaper in London and we would like to do a piece about Monty Panesar being picked for the England Test squad and we'd like to use your pic of him with the Mike Whitney Band....would that be OK....??
also you wouldn't have any of him singing would you..?/
any help much appreciated..Many thanks..Jack
Jack is clearly in the wrong in simply just using the image though, and clearly with intent, removing the © watermark. So you quite simply have them by the short and curlies.
But dont get too excited as some people who've had their images used without permission, have been countersued when their claim for useage was far too high.
So work out the approximate useage that Getty would charge (easy to work out if you log on to Getty), and then add a fee for the unlicensed use/breach of copyright.
PS I'd also address your complaint to the Editor directly.
Longshots
14-12-2011, 11:57am
I have just received a MSG from the guy on fb saying "oh it's a shame u didn't get back to me earlier we could of used a picture of him singing.
What difference dies it make?? They still took my photo and removed my name. Regardless of t&cs you can't do that!
The guy also said that he got it from the bands fb page. He also asked for my banking details and an address... Hmmm I'm not to sure! Shouldn't he just send a chq???
Anyway I'll chat to my friend who is helping me with this.
Thanks all for your advice, it helps ALOT.
I Spose now all my images are going to have a great big dirty watermark across the whole image from now on!
You dont want a cheque. Too complex with international transfers. Far easier to supply Bank details. I receive payments from the UK on a regular basis, and EFT is the way to go - bear in mind that some banks here charge approx $13-$20 for international payments received.
I'd just replied and found your update afterwards.
I'd still send them an invoice for the unlicensed use - clearly you had not given them permisssion.
While he got it from the bands FB page, he clearly knew to contact you prior to publication. Seems quite obvious to me that they knew and they deliberately removed the watermark which is obvious on the bands FB page.
If they cannot use your IP they cannot display your work. Wouldn't that turn everyone off?
Perhaps clarification from me...
When I say "use" your work, I mean;
Sell, gift, alter, provide to 3rd party for publication, display on other than the site for which you intended...
From what Arthur posted above;
"you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."
This type of inherited permission is of great concern to me.
Longshots
14-12-2011, 2:10pm
the important part which many miss is that its "in connection" with Facebook - ie thats the limit of its use.
Tommo224
14-12-2011, 3:33pm
One thing I want to add, is that he claims he found it on the bands FB page. Did the "band" crop the (C) out themselves on their FB page? (if you change your profile picture, you can crop images on FB directly).
Check the bands page, see if your watermark/(C) is still there before saying anything about the removal of the watermark!
Danielle10
14-12-2011, 5:07pm
One thing I want to add, is that he claims he found it on the bands FB page. Did the "band" crop the (C) out themselves on their FB page? (if you change your profile picture, you can crop images on FB directly).
Check the bands page, see if your watermark/(C) is still there before saying anything about the removal of the watermark!
Yeah it's on there, I tagged the band, my dad is the lead guitarist.
Danielle10
14-12-2011, 7:42pm
I looked at Getty images and randomly chose some photos. One I clicked on was $325 and another one was $780!!! ( and the 780 one was pretty bad IMHO)
I can't go asking for amounts like that, they'll just brush it aside and not care, I'll be lucky to get $50 so they just shut me up.
^ seems to me, in the first instance, you could ask what you want (though I'm no expert). Read Longshots post again. Based on what you found $325 becomes you minimum and then there's more for "unlicensed use."
peterb666
14-12-2011, 10:41pm
$325 for once only, non-excusive use; plus $1300 for use without prior authorisation, tampering with the image, removal of the signature and publishing without crediting the copyright owner.
That comes to $1,625 - is that close enough to that new lens you wanted?
BTW, I wonder how much (or little) of the Getty images fee goes to the copyright owner. I had an invite to add one of my photos to Getty and declined. There are too many images on Getty so I thought it was pointless and the amount of potential income wouldn't be enough to sway me from my extreme left-wing bias towards capitalism. :rolleyes:
It was until recently a Getty stringer would get 50%, it's just been changed to 35%.....it may be similar here I'd think.
Danielle10
17-12-2011, 4:00pm
If u click on the link again u will see the photographers name :)
Also I recieved a MSG and they paying me for the image. I'm very happy with the result, thanks for your support everyone xxx
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2072587/Monty-hopes-Springsteen-turn-help-rock-England.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
peterb666
17-12-2011, 4:39pm
Well done Danielle, and that guy did the wrong thing and is a complete (insert words you sometimes use here) but all has turned out well.
Xenedis
17-12-2011, 4:46pm
If u click on the link again u will see the photographers name :)
Also I recieved a MSG and they paying me for the image.
Glad to hear it turned out well.
While it's nice to be paid for your work, it's mightily irritating when someone helps himself without even seeking permission.
Longshots
17-12-2011, 6:40pm
I looked at Getty images and randomly chose some photos. One I clicked on was $325 and another one was $780!!! ( and the 780 one was pretty bad IMHO)
I can't go asking for amounts like that, they'll just brush it aside and not care, I'll be lucky to get $50 so they just shut me up.
I'm pleased that you were eventually paid.
My suggestion for you to look at the cost of using a Getty image, was so you could understand the value media do actually place on intellectual property - such as in this case, a visual image.
They care very little about who you are, your level, your standard, how many cameras you have, or how long you've been doing it for. It fills a space in a web page or in a printed material, and the issue here is that space has a value; a value to the producer of the paper, both in production (ie editorial) and in saleable space (ie advertising).
Frankly what you think you should ask for was in all honesty irrelevant, what was important was that they paid you, and I hope offered you a consumate fee that was relevant to what they would normally pay for that type of space.
They were also very fortunate that you did not claim an additional cost for a breach of copyright. However, there are times when if they've accepted that they were at fault, and someone has been rapped over the knuckles for simply taking your image, and you've been paid a fee that YOU are comfortable with, then thats a successful outcome.
PS Yes there is plenty of total crap on Getty images, amazingly though it gets used and they (Getty) manage the sales, of which the photographer gets a percentage of the fee - which again in many cases probably wouldnt have ever sold without the might of Getty selling it, and therefore whatever the percentage, its better then sweet FA, which is all some of their images are worth - IMHO.
johnske
17-12-2011, 7:50pm
followed the link ... just like the Reuters and Getty Images it now has a copyright Danielle Sheehan in the bottom left corner
Glad to hear you had a satisfactory result in the end.
farmer_rob
17-12-2011, 11:02pm
Just an aside - sometimes content means more than quality, and sometime quality means more than content. Either way, the copyright owner sometimes has an opportunity to call the shots with the press.
It seems like you managed a satisfactory outcome. Well done.
Invictus
18-12-2011, 7:13pm
Danielle: Good to know you had a satisfactory result in the end.
Interesting read and comments all round, considering I'm in the process of chasing down offenders.
Tommo224
22-12-2011, 4:52pm
High 5! :)
darrenmars
26-12-2011, 11:48am
That's great that they've agreed to pay for use of the image... A very interesting thread indeed, certainly something to learn from.
Danielle10
26-12-2011, 12:02pm
That's great that they've agreed to pay for use of the image... A very interesting thread indeed, certainly something to learn from.
Well they have credited me but still waiting for the funds -_-
Def something to learn from, put great big dirty watermarks across your images if u are putting them online!
Are you a professional photographer? Have you lost money now that this photo has been published and you cannot sell it as an exclusive? I am guessing the answer to both of these questions is No, so i am not sure why you are so offended. I would send them an invoice for a small amount. It will probably go straight to the accounting department and get put through - no questions asked
William
04-01-2012, 2:13pm
Are you a professional photographer? Have you lost money now that this photo has been published and you cannot sell it as an exclusive? I am guessing the answer to both of these questions is No, so i am not sure why you are so offended. I would send them an invoice for a small amount. It will probably go straight to the accounting department and get put through - no questions asked
Done and dusted this thread Simon, Started 12-12-11 :D
Should have gone past page 1 haha
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.