Possible Copyright Infringement

AlanF

I have a Photograph I took on the 17th March, 2008. The Picture is a very distinctive one but it is of a Landscape which has being taken on numerous times by quite a few Photographers, and Tourists over the years.

I published this Picture to a Website I am manage on the 24th March, 2008.

On the 26th March, 2008 a newspaper published a very similar Picture (I suspect that it is in fact my picture), with no acknowledgement as to the Photographer.

I contacted the newspaper in question to put forward my suspicions as to the ownership of the published Picture.

The newspaper just replied stating “This picture was taken by our staff photographer.” In my query I did ask for proof of ownership but the one line reply is all I received.

A number of people I have shown both pictures to have stated that the Picture published in this Newspaper is the Image I published on March 24th, 2008 which would imply that the Picture published in the Newspaper is actually mine.

I am not a Professional Photographer, it is a hobby, but I sometimes publish some of my Pictures to the Website I administer as it enhances the overall content which is for a Festival.

Would anyone out there be in a position to let me know whether I have any way of proving that the Newspaper has as I suspect stolen my image and passed it off as one of their own?

AlanF

Cabaal

Its hard to know without seeing both photos, often the same place can be photograghed so often and in many similar ways that you might mistake somebody else's photo for your own......this has been covered in many threads before with many examples given.

Paulw

You would want to be sure that your image is what they used. Even more so, if the area is popular and photographed regularly.

If you ARE sure, then send them an invoice for the use of your copyright image.

mikeanywhere

Cabaal wrote: »

Its hard to know without seeing both photos, often the same place can be photograghed so often and in many similar ways that you might mistake somebody else's photo for your own......this has been covered in many threads before with many examples given.

As Cabaal says!!

AlanF

My apologies for posting such a repetitive thread, but it is usual that such threads are marked as sticky to stop such repetitiveness.

Anyway, I would have provided links to both images, but one is in hardcopy in the Newspaper and not available online.

My suspicion was raised due to the composition of the shot as well as the dates of publication especially when my Picture was published first. I have asked for the newspapers Original Image so that I can verify the EXIF that would backup the papers claim.

AlanF

amcinroy

Alan,

Don't mention the EXIF to the newspaper. Chances are they know little about EXIF and if they do, they might try and strip it or edit it.

Just request their digital file to compare. I used this approach with my local paper and they sent me a digital file with my own camera serial number embedded within the EXIF. Silly them.

To be fair to the newspaper in question, in this example they had just printed the file that had been given to them by a third party.

Andy

Cabaal

amcinroy's idea sounds pretty solid, I'd go with that and then compare the exif data and go from there,

AlanF

Thank your for the useful advice. Taken onboard.
The Newspaper and also the Photographer have point blank refused to supply me with the picture in any shape or form, which could be construed as an admission of guilt.

However I am not letting up and will if I have to take this further.

Anyone out there any ideas of some avenues I could take seeing as I am getting nowhere being Mr. Nice Guy?

Paulw

Get a good solicitor, such as TJ McIntyre.

But, you better be sure it is your image they're using.

whyulittle

Similar situation to yourself in that a local paper took a a photo off a website I maintained. Sent them a solicitors letter. Never got an official reply off them, though I did get an apology in person, and the offer to use my shots in future for a fee.

AlanF

Paul,

That’s the problem, I can only assume that the Picture is mine as the proof to the contrary is being withheld from me.

I have offered on many occasions the chance for the Newspaper and/or Photographer to prove that the Picture is not mine yet they have refused me this curtsey point blank.

So until they prove otherwise, based upon observation and publication dates I can only surmise that the Picture is mine. My Picture was published 2 days prior to their publication date and the Picture was taken 10 days before their publication date.

If they were to provide me with proof of ownership I would be more than happy to say "what a coincidence".

Hugh_C

AlanF wrote: »

Paul,

That’s the problem, I can only assume that the Picture is mine as the proof to the contrary is being withheld from me.

If they were to provide me with proof of ownership I would be more than happy to say "what a coincidence".

Sorry to rain on your parade but that picture is mine and unless you provide me the original file with its EXIF intact then I will assume that you took it from my website. And then sold it to the newspaper.

I will assume that your failure to provide me with evidence to the contrary is in itself wholly an admission of guilt.

Reductio ad absurdum.

OK so I'm using a bizarre example to show how dubious your claim could be construed. I think that their failure to provide any evidence to the contrary may just be lethargy on their part or an unwillingness to entertain what they may claim are absurd allegations.

You need to be absolutely certain that it's yours before you proceed any further, which can surely be ascertained by looking at the two versions. Are you absolutely certain? If you are, then use a lawyer if you think it's worth it.

Hugh

amcinroy

One final word of caution.

Be very careful about burning your boats with your local paper.

This might not be worth pursuing. I had a bit of a run in with my local paper but I decided to leave it. 6 months later they published a half page worth of free publicity for me.

Andy

Turbodreams

I studied copyright last year but unfortunately with the amount of exams I have at the moment my memory is very poor! In respect to infringement, we dealt mostly with people copying “your” photo. You would have no grounds to pursue this root as your image is not original (from what you said). This would also hamper your case in trying to prove that he “stole” it from you. before you seek advice though, be very sure it is indeed your image, because legal advice is not cheap!I do recommend you seek advice from a specialist, not your local solicitor. For example, http://www.crean.ie/.

Paulw

You should compare your image to theirs and make sure that they are the same. You should be able to find enough distinct points (peaks, trees, lines etc).

If, after all that, you are totally sure, then talk to a solicitor, especially someone who knows copyright law.

Zzippy

Turbodreams wrote: »

I studied copyright last year but unfortunately with the amount of exams I have at the moment my memory is very poor! In respect to infringement, we dealt mostly with people copying “your” photo. You would have no grounds to pursue this root as your image is not original (from what you said). This would also hamper your case in trying to prove that he “stole” it from you. before you seek advice though, be very sure it is indeed your image, because legal advice is not cheap!I do recommend you seek advice from a specialist, not your local solicitor. For example, http://www.crean.ie/.

What do you mean its not original. The OP said he took the photo himself, and uploaded it to a website he maintains, himself. I don't see anyone else's involvement there.

OP any chance you could give a link to your original pic? Are there any distinguishing features that could mark it as unique, such as cloud formations, people/animals in the shot? If there were it would be very hard for them to claim their photo was a different shot.

YeahOK

Send them a letter asking them again to provide you with the exif data for the photo. Advise them that if they do not you will have no other option but to seek advice on the matter.

(They don't ned to know that the advice your seeking is from boards:))

Turbodreams

AlanF wrote: »

The Picture is a very distinctive one but it is of a Landscape which has being taken on numerous times by quite a few Photographers, and Tourists over the years.
AlanF

Zzippy wrote: »

What do you mean its not original. .

this is what i mean by its not being original( in legal terms). i cannot go and take a photograph of Leinster House and claim copyright infringement when someone has taken the same shot and published it. there is an exception to this rule but involves a highly creative, artistic merit. but as i said in my post, this issue is concerned with the "stealing" of his picture, not the copying!

Calina

Turbodreams, the issue under discussion is not that someone took the same photograph but that someone may have used his particular photograph without permission. That is a copyright infringement

Turbodreams

Turbodreams wrote: »

but as i said in my post, this issue is concerned with the "stealing" of his picture, not the copying!

Calina wrote: »

Turbodreams, the issue under discussion is not that someone took the same photograph but that someone may have used his particular photograph without permission. That is a copyright infringement

thats is exactly what i said!!

Paulw

Turbodreams wrote: »

this is what i mean by its not being original( in legal terms). i cannot go and take a photograph of Leinster House and claim copyright infringement when someone has taken the same shot and published it. there is an exception to this rule but involves a highly creative, artistic merit. but as i said in my post, this issue is concerned with the "stealing" of his picture, not the copying!

As you have stated yourself, you are not a solicitor and not qualified to give legal advice.

You also seem to fail to understand that images are all unique. Even if two people take an image of the exact same building from the same angle, each is unique and each is protected under copyright.

If they have stolen his image and printed it, then they have breached copyright.

Turbodreams

Paulw wrote: »

As you have stated yourself, you are not a solicitor and not qualified to give legal advice.

You also seem to fail to understand that images are all unique. Even if two people take an image of the exact same building from the same angle, each is unique and each is protected under copyright.

.

your statement shows you have no legal education and do not understand this area! you are entirely wrong

DaireQuinlan

Turbodreams wrote: »

your statement shows you have no legal education and do not understand this area! you are entirely wrong

:rolleyes:


In reference to the OP and agreeing with some of the comments above, I'd make really sure you're right before proceeding with this. I've seen people swear blind that a picture was theirs even when there were clear and discernable differences between the two. Its a pity the potentially infringing image was in print only. I presume you don't want to make known the name of the publication in question ?

TelePaul

Turbodreams wrote: »

your statement shows you have no legal education and do not understand this area! you are entirely wrong

I think we all need to be clear on this before we go on. You seem to be saying that the original poster has no right to be aggrieved because the image in question is composed of a subject that may be (and has been) photographed by all-and-sundry (akin to your example of Leinster House). Correct?

amcinroy

Turbodreams,

Paul is exactly right. It doesn't matter how many times something has been photographed. If you can prove that someone copied your photograph then that is copyright infringement.

Recreating a photograph by going out and taking it yourself is not.

Andy

Turbodreams

TelePaul wrote: »

I think we all need to be clear on this before we go on. You seem to be saying that the original poster has no right to be aggrieved because the image in question is composed of a subject that may be (and has been) photographed by all-and-sundry (akin to your example of Leinster House). Correct?

no! because the OP is claiming that they took his actual image! this is copyright infringement!! if they had merely taken the same pic using their photographer, it would not be copyright infringement (unless as i said before there is an exceptionally hight level of artistic merit, skill and creativity)

Paulw

Turbodreams wrote: »

no! because the OP is claiming that they took his actual image! this is copyright infringement!! if they had merely taken the same pic using their photographer, it would not be copyright infringement (unless as i said before there is an exceptionally hight level of artistic merit, skill and creativity)

That's what people have been saying here from the very start.

Cabaal

Turbodreams, you need to re-read this whole thread as you appear to be missing the point, Paulw is 100% correct in what he's explaining, you appear to be getting the wrong end of the stick.

Turbodreams

Just to give a final clarification on the matter. Take from it what you like.

Paulw wrote: »

.

You also seem to fail to understand that images are all unique. Even if two people take an image of the exact same building from the same angle, each is unique and each is protected under copyright.

If they have stolen his image and printed it, then they have breached copyright.

Paul’s second statement is correct. This is what’s relevant
His first statement is wrong! For general interest purposes, you cannot claim copyright infringement with regards to common photographs: eg. Leinster House, Glendalough etc. unless you meet a very high criteria of artistic merit, skill and creativity. This has nothing to do with a person “stealing” your photograph. It concerns the copying , i.e. someone viewing my photograph and a few days later going to the same location and taking the same picture.

amcinroy

Turbodreams wrote: »

with regards to common photographs: eg. Leinster House, Glendalough etc. unless you meet a very high criteria of artistic merit, skill and creativity.

This is just completely wrong. Copyright is nothing to do with effort, creativity or skill. It is purely a matter of copying. Hence "copyright". The copying is referring to a piece of work rather than a concept.

You can't copyright a view of anything (either a well known building or a vista).

egan007

Can't you just put one over the other in photoshop and change the opacity of the top layer, there is very little chance of two identical photographs.

If you can't do this pm me and ill do it for you.

Covey

You're totally confused here Turbodreams.

A location is not copyrighted , therefore any one can take a photo of it (assuming it's legal to so.)

A photograph of a location does have an individual copyright attached (assuming it's not been assigned or transferred) regardless of how many other photos exist of the same subject, even those taken from exactely the same spot.

So for example I take a shot of Leinster House using a tripod and someone else with the same focal lenght lens takes another shot using my tripod (unmoved). Two photographs, both with individual copyright exist.

BTW, Paulw was not wrong

egan007

I'm Bemused at the arguments in this thread!

magicbastarder

Turbodreams wrote: »

His first statement is wrong! For general interest purposes, you cannot claim copyright infringement with regards to common photographs

which is what he's saying...

TelePaul

I'm kinda relieved, I thought I was going crazy reading this. Nice one PaulW!

TelePaul

Turbodreams wrote: »

His first statement is wrong! For general interest purposes, you cannot claim copyright infringement with regards to common photographs: eg. Leinster House, Glendalough etc. unless you meet a very high criteria of artistic merit, skill and creativity.

I have a really hard time believing this. It's like saying that if I wrote a song with the chords C, F and G that because those chords are common components of music in general, I don't own the copyright on that song. I think you are getting confused about 'copying' and 'copyright'. Surely as sure as you hit the shutter-release then you own the copyright to that photo?

BanzaiBk

Um, as someone who's spent the passed 6 months studying for copyright et al exams I'm having a very "WTF?!" moment right about now.

TelePaul

BanzaiBk wrote: »

Um, as someone who's spent the passed 6 months studying for copyright et al exams I'm having a very "WTF?!" moment right about now.

What we're seeing is a perfect execution of the "Chewbacca Defense"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

Paulw

TelePaul wrote: »

Surely as sure as you hit the shutter-release then you own the copyright to that photo?

Exactly. That is correct. Once you hit the shutter button, the image you have taken is then protected by copyright.

If someone uses your camera to take an image, then they own the copyright to that image.

amcinroy

Paulw wrote: »

If someone uses your camera to take an image, then they own the copyright to that image.

What happens if you have set the camera up for them on a tripod and programmed the exposure and your glamorous assistant merely pressed the shutter button? Who owns the copyright?

This interesting situation did actually happen to me in one of my cave series http://www.andymcinroy.com/5port3.htm. The reason being that I wanted to include myself in the shot. Or what happens if the camera presses the button itself ?(i.e self timer). Do I still own the copyright? Is a self timer any different to an assistant who pressed the button for you? Hehe. It's never as simple as first appears.

Now we're going way off topic. LOL

Paulw

If your assistance is "employed" by you, then you would own the copyright. This would be under the same circumstances as you taking photos as part of your job, then your employer would own the copyright. This is along the lines of a recent post by TJ about IP.

As for the self timer, you still have to hit the button to tell the self timer to begin, so you own the copyright.

Typhoon.

Isnt the London Eye and other buildings copyrighted? i dont think you allowed...well..i dont think yor meant to take photos of it...hah a...imagine trying to stop tourits snapping away

elven

Well there's that shiny bean thing in chicago isn't there? And the eiffel tower at night...

TelePaul

elven wrote: »

Well there's that shiny bean thing in chicago isn't there? And the eiffel tower at night...

What's the bean thing? I'm pretty sure the tower at night was declared off limits by the company that lights it.

mcyclist

To get back to the original post.
Firstly I am sure you have copyright protection on your image. Your problem is proving thatit was copied.
If you cannot, by examining the image, be absolutely certain that the image was in fact copied then you may have a dificulty. Neither the Newspaper or their photographer are obliged to give you any files. Also remember, if in fact it is not your photo, then they might perceive you as attempting to call their professionalism into question.
It is possible to get a court order directing the newspaper to make the files available, if they still exist, but you would need to initiate a substantive claim for royalties first. In other words, a lot of trouble and expense which could not be justified unless 1, you are absolutely sure it is your photo and 2, you are sure you can prove, on the basis of probablility, that it is you image.
Unless you can answer yes to these latter two tests, you are better not to pursue.
Also do not suggest that you will take legal action unless you are abosolutely sure that you do intend to do so.

Cameraman

There are actually 3 separate copyright referred to in this thread.

(1) The actual one raised by the OP. The one thing which is fairly clear is that if someone uses an image of yours without permission that is a breach of copyright.

In the circumstances being discussed here, the issue is the difficulty in proving that it is actually your image they are using. If you can prove that, then it would be a breach of copyright.

The other two issues are not particularly relevant to the OP's issue, but were raised in the thread anyway.

(2) Certain companies have claimed copyright over the commercial reproduction of photos of their buildings. The classic example being night shots of the Eiffel Tower. See here (including an interesting reference to Irish Copyright law).

(3) It can also be possible to claim copyright if someone recreates and photographs an image the same as, or similar to that of another photographer. I think this is what Turbodreams was referring to with his mention of

very high criteria of artistic merit, skill and creativity

A fairly recent example is the case of the estate of Bob Carlos Clarke vs Pepsi
See here
In this case even though the image was different they claimed it as a breach of copyright. There have been other similar cases in the past.

This also would not apply in the case of the OP, as it was a commonly photographed scene - so no-one could be legitimately accused of 'stealing' a unique artistic idea.

Thirdfox

Or in an Irish context - Trinity College v. Star Wars (They held that the Jedi library was just a mock up of the Long Room in TCD - I don't think the case went to court in the end).

Typhoon.

wow great example Camerman....

AlanF

I am delighted to say that this issue has being resolved.

The photographer eventually sent me his original Picture which was printed in the Newspaper. I was then able to compare my Original Picture against his, and yes they were different, so my suspicions were invalid.

In my defence the Pictures were extremely similar and because I only had a black and white Newspaper quality image to base my suspicions on it was an easy mistake to make, this coupled with the 2 day difference in publication, well anyone would be suspicious.

This incident has taught me, is that if you publish your Pictures even for pleasure make sure you keep the Original, luckily I did, but if I did not it would have been much more difficult to discern differences in the Pictures, especially if you have manipulated or enhanced the Original in some way.

Always make a copy of your Pictures before you do anything, you can then reference back to them if needed like in my case.

Just to clarify the original position.

I suspected the Newspaper had taken the Image I Published to a Web site I run and used this Picture in their Publication. Due to my persistence I was able to get the proof of ownership I required which proved my suspicions held no weight.
An outcome I am delighted with for all involved with, I hasten to add.


So thank you to all who have being so helpful and supportive.


AlanF

AnCatDubh

Fair play to you Alan for the postscript. I think any of us could make such an honest mistake. Another lesson in this for all of us (as i think you did) is to thread softly until guilt / culpability is established.

Also fair play to the other photographer in question (news guy/gal) - they could have taken the approach "I know its not your image bud so sue me!" I think it may all boil down to the approach - you catch far more bees with honey than vinegar.

Thanks again for the postscript to this - it's refreshingly reassuring.

Cheers.