Possible Copyright Infringement

whyulittle

I'm hoping someone might be able to help me out on this.

A local paper used a photo of mine, without asking for permission, without crediting me, and certainly without paying me.

What avenues do I have open to me?

I know where they took it from, a website I used to maintain for an organisation in town. Every photo on the site wouldn't have copyright on it, but every page on the site did have '© Mr X' on it.

Is that sufficient to cover me, or have I left myself open to it? I would imagine they would at least still have to ask permission or credit me, even if I have given up some of my rights by not having copyright on every photo?

Orion

Firstly I'm no lawyer so this is not legal advice.

Anything you create is your copyright. That could be a letter, photo, email, anything. For them to use a photo you took without your permission - regardless of where they got it from - is copyright infringement. You don't even need the "© Mr X" on it. (© isn't recognised in law afaik btw - (c) is - but I could be wrong there). They have no right to use it without your permission in the slightest. However, you will most likely have no financial recourse unless you can prove that you have lost money as a result. And from your post I'd say you don't. However, they will at least have to credit you with the photo. I'd say write to them in a non-agressive manner and they will know they have ****ed up and will credit you in a later edition - probably asking you to indemnify them if they do so.

Excellent article on Copyright Myths here.

Fajitas!

Yes, your copyright has been infringed, I'd be getting straight onto the paper about it. However it is 5.24 in the morning, and I'm running for a train, so I'm not much use at the moment

mikeanywhere

Where did they get the image from ie Flickr etc?? Do you have copyright info on there, if not, defo add it!!!

whyulittle

mikeanywhere wrote: »

Where did they get the image from ie Flickr etc?? Do you have copyright info on there, if not, defo add it!!!

whyulittle wrote:

I know where they took it from, a website I used to maintain for an organisation in town. Every photo on the site wouldn't have copyright on it, but every page on the site did have '© Mr X' on it.

It wasn't even a spectacular shot, it was used in a news piece. What annoys me about it is that they could easily have gone and taken the exact same shot themselves, and then had to pay their staff/freelance photographer for it. But instead, they just thought 'sure we'll just take this fella's for free'.

whyulittle

Macros42 wrote: »

© isn't recognised in law afaik btw - (c) is - but I could be wrong there

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html wrote:

The correct form for a notice is:

"Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]"
You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now not legally needed most places. In some countries it may help preserve some of the "moral rights."

Looks like you have it backwards, that's from your own link. Just thinking about it further, the 'Mr X' part is actually an email link as well, so they could easily contacted me if they wished.

rymus

id give em opportunity to make it right... either by printing an apology or sending you payment. If that doesn't yield sufficient results, take 'em to the ****in cleaners!

Oh, and for future protection of your shots, turn off your 'all sizes' option in flickr.

Paulw

Send them an invoice for the use of your photo. I'm not sure what the going rate is, but you are due it.

You automatically have copyright on your photo, unless you assign it to someone else. So, you're very much in the right here, and the paper is in the wrong.

Fajitas!

Paulw wrote: »

Send them an invoice for the use of your photo. I'm not sure what the going rate is, but you are due it.

You automatically have copyright on your photo, unless you assign it to someone else. So, you're very much in the right here, and the paper is in the wrong.

Feic the 'going rate' - It's your photo, you decide the price.

Give them a ring, asking for their contact/address to send the invoice to.

And be a smart ass if you're that kinda guy/in the mood.

Progen

When I used to work for the KerrysEye the price per photo printed was/still is afaik, 12.50.

magicbastarder

i'd invoice them for €200.

Paulw

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd invoice them for €200.

Sounds like a fair price, especially since they didn't contact you, ask permission or credit you.

I'm sure the fine for breaching copyright is a lot higher than that.

Fajitas!

€200 sounds about right.

What? You didn't ask the price before you used it? I'm sorry, but that's not my fault.

Thirdfox

Could pose a "hypothetical" question on the legal discussion forum...
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=633

I'm interested from a purely legal standpoint - copyrighted images (even without permission as far as I know) can be used under "fair use" - but does the fact that the local newspaper is a profit/non-profit making organisation affect it's right to commentary? I haven't done intellectual property rights in Ireland so I would suggest posting this in the legal forum and see what they say there too (as well as photographers who have personal experience commenting here).

Paulw

"Fair Use" is only a US thing, and doesn't apply in Europe, that I know of.

The image is copyright, so it cannot be used without the expressed permission of the copyright holder (photographer).

I'd love to see a solicitor comment, that that is my understanding.

Cabaal

Fajitas! wrote: »

€200 sounds about right.

What? You didn't ask the price before you used it? I'm sorry, but that's not my fault.

Yeah 200e sounds grand enough,

I'm betting they won't give the money or apologies that easily though

Thirdfox

Paulw wrote: »

"Fair Use" is only a US thing, and doesn't apply in Europe, that I know of.

The image is copyright, so it cannot be used without the expressed permission of the copyright holder (photographer).

I'd love to see a solicitor comment, that that is my understanding.

This seems to be the relevant Act
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0028/index.html

In Ireland there appears to be a defence of "fair dealing" and other cases well copyright is deemed not to be infringed upon (such as "education")
but see this subsection:
"(2) Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events shall not infringe copyright in that work, where the report is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement." - seems like photography is explicitly left out.

...but you know what's more dangerous than not knowing the law? Half knowing it and applying it incorrectly! So do take what I say with a pinch of salt and look for yourself.

magicbastarder

i think fair dealing is there to allow reviewers to quote from books they're reviewing, or show scans of the cover, and similar uses.

whyulittle

Thanks for all the replies. Will think it over and let you know how I get on. I'm friendly with an experienced solicitor (he cross examined Bertie Ahern at the tribunals once!), so I might give him a shout and see what he says.

trooney

Yeah yeah yeah, thats all great. OR you could use it as a relationship building exercise with the paper and perhaps contribute photos on a regular basis. Giving you an additional outlet for your work. Maybe.

stcstc

i agree, burning bridges etc with places like newspaper generally is never really gonna get you anywhere.

I do understand that they should not of just taken your image either, and we need to try and stop that kinda stuff.

But like above it could actually turn into an opening rather than just a pain. if the paper know who you are and think hey we can just get away with it they will. and just coming on strong will just make them dig their heels in.


I would suggest actually contacting them saying if you want me to contribute etc first, cos hey you got nothing to really lose by asking

magicbastarder

though if they're the type of paper who steals images, you might find they don't pay well.

Thirdfox

could be an honest mistake - the facts aren't fully known yet...

we learn in law lectures that the legal solution should be the final solution...it's better if everyone is amicable about problems and sort it out swiftly and quietly between themselves. No need to go to a solicitor at the very beginning (unless just to clarify your own rights).

trooney

magicbastarder wrote: »

though if they're the type of paper who steals images, you might find they don't pay well.

It doesn't always have to be about the squilla.

IncredibleHulk

I know where they took it from, a website I used to maintain for an organisation in town. Every photo on the site wouldn't have copyright on it, but every page on the site did have '© Mr X' on it.

Hi
I am not certain you would own the copyright. I think it would depend on your relationship the organisation in town' for whom you maintain the website.

For example a journalist who is employed by a paper will ususally not own the copyright on their work as they do it in the course of their work. A freelance will own the copyright. A journalist working for the paper may be able to make a deal with the paper which means he/she will own it but generally will not

If you are working for the organisation and took the pic for them you may not own it unless you had such an agreement with them. If you freelance for them you probably would. Let us know the outcome

DISCLAIMER This is not legal advice and may be wrong

Fajitas!

magicbastarder wrote: »

though if they're the type of paper who steals images, you might find they don't pay well.

Exactly what I was going to say. If they're taking images already, then what's going to stop them?

TJM

Now might be a good time to shamelessly plug my talk on "Law for Photographers" at Share the Knowledge.

IncredibleHulk

TJM wrote: »

Now might be a good time to shamelessly plug my talk on "Law for Photographers" at Share the Knowledge.

So am I right about the copyright ownership?

rymus

trooney wrote: »

Yeah yeah yeah, thats all great. OR you could use it as a relationship building exercise with the paper and perhaps contribute photos on a regular basis. Giving you an additional outlet for your work. Maybe.

Eh... That ship has well sailed. It's been said several times already but if they've started the relationship with you by stealing one or more of your images; Well that doesn't have the makings of a happy and productive accord. I'd echo magic's comments. If they've already stole at least one image you know about, chances are their accounts department isn't too fond on writing cheques for photographers.

whyulittle

IncredibleHulk wrote: »

Hi
I am not certain you would own the copyright. I think it would depend on your relationship the organisation in town' for whom you maintain the website.

It was done in a voluntary capacity, I no more handed over my copyright to them than I did the paper.

trooney wrote:

Yeah yeah yeah, thats all great. OR you could use it as a relationship building exercise with the paper and perhaps contribute photos on a regular basis. Giving you an additional outlet for your work. Maybe.

Even leaving this incident aside, if I wanted to pursue a career in press photography, this paper wouldn't be my first choice.

rymus

whyulittle wrote: »

Even leaving this incident aside, if I wanted to pursue a career in press photography, this paper wouldn't be my first choice.

Then in that vein, allow me to suggest a classic... The 'flaming bag of poo' offensive..

TJM

IncredibleHulk wrote: »

So am I right about the copyright ownership?

Yes*

*As usual, there are quibbles. For more detail than you could possibly want, see here:
http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2007/06/copyright-in-custom-code-who-owns.html

That article deals with ownership of software but 90% of the principles also apply to photography.

whyulittle

rymus wrote: »

Then in that vein, allow me to suggest a classic... The 'flaming bag of poo' offensive..

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter....

Thirdfox

TJM wrote: »

Yes*

*As usual, there are quibbles. For more detail than you could possibly want, see here:
http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2007/06/copyright-in-custom-code-who-owns.html

That article deals with ownership of software but 90% of the principles also apply to photography.

Wow, didn't know we had a law lecturer posting here

Now I'm very interested in seeing the boards photography lecture being posted online (I won't be able to attend).

It'd be nice to get some proper legal facts for once

corkandproud

Paulw wrote: »

Send them an invoice for the use of your photo. I'm not sure what the going rate is, but you are due it.

You automatically have copyright on your photo, unless you assign it to someone else. So, you're very much in the right here, and the paper is in the wrong.

Agreed, they will probably pay immediately.

Are you NUJ?

soccerc

Would you believe the same happened to me when a photo of mine was lifted from a website I ran.

Contacted the publication in question and not only did they pay up pronto and apologise but I've since earned over €40k from them.

whyulittle

Mentioned this to my solicitor buddy today, so going to wait and see what he gets back with. Will be following it up in some fashion though.