Photo used without consent

Sterling Archer

All sorted now folks, thanks to all

DellyBelly

Shane_ef wrote: »

Apologies in I'm completely in the wrong forum here, I'm after finding out a local county paper is after using one of my photos on there back page with my consent.. I'm at a loss as to what to do
Any advice?
Should I let it go, or go after compensation?

Thanks also admin delete if needed

If you gave them your consent I can't see why you have a problem unless I'm missing something

CeilingFly

I presume you mean "without consent"

Are they using it for financial gain
Are they claiming it as their photo.
How did they come across it - if social media, then you made it public.

Tenigate

Assume op mean "without"

Op, how did they get a hold of your photo? I'm guessing you uploaded it online, maybe a public facebook page?

In what way are they using your photo? Part of an ad? In a discussion of your photo? To illustrate an article?

Sterling Archer

Yes sorry "without".. I posted it to social media with watermarks that they have cropped out.. it's the main image for a sport news story

Tenigate

It's a bit of a legal minefield.
If you posted it publicly they can argue that they had a right to use the photo. And you're uploading on Facebook's terms, not your own terms.

I think your next step is to figure out what you want. Attribution. Apology. A fee. Punitive damages.
You might give them a phonecall and offer them a chance to put things right.

RossieMan

Put things right? He put it on Facebook, don't see why they need to offer anything. It's pretty free to use when it's up there. Removing the watermarks is a bit sketchy, I agree.

fritzelly

Posting something publicly does not instantly make said works public domain (same argument could be used for a lot of things if that was the case), in Ireland you have automatic copyright on any works.
If they wilfully removed the watermarks (was it a copyright watermark?) then you have a much stronger case against them. Look at thejournal.ie which very often uses stock images and gives accreditation and probably pays a nice subscription fee for their use.

A small fee for use of the photo would not be beyond reason but don't think you will be getting thousands for copyright theft.

http://photoclaim.com/en/photography-copyright-in-europe/

shaunr68

RossieMan wrote: »

Put things right? He put it on Facebook, don't see why they need to offer anything. It's pretty free to use when it's up there. Removing the watermarks is a bit sketchy, I agree.

OP didn't confirm that the pic had been posted on FB, it was one of the questions asked

Sterling Archer

The watermarks were just my name and the name I post videos under on YouTube.. I not thinking of thousands, if I'd been asked I'd probably have offered it for free or a small monetary amount, but it's that I wasn't asked, credit and they cropped out the marks I added.. I'll give them a call about it in the morning, see what they say..

fritzelly

Shane_ef wrote: »

I'll give them a call about it in the morning, see what they say..

Good idea, local rag is unlikely to have multitudes of money but hey pay for a few drinks out - probably some "rogue" reporter who thought no one would notice (as long as he didn't get paid for it!)

minikin

Post an invoice to them (say €100, payable within seven days of publication date, follow up with an emailed PayPal request for funds) for unapproved reproduction of your image.

If you treat it like a business transaction, they are more likely to also.
Don’t bother calling them / emailing them / facebooking them.

The fact you published online is irrelevant, you still retain copyright in relation in this instance, unless the publication owns facebook in which case you would be flat out of luck.

Best of luck and don’t publish print res images online unless you want this to re-occur.

Effects

Send invoice, follow up after seven days as they will likely try and ignore you.

Effects

minikin wrote: »

Best of luck and don’t publish print res images online unless you want this to re-occur.

Could be a nice revenue stream though.

minikin

Effects wrote: »

Could be a nice revenue stream though.

Who needs the hassle 😀

Sterling Archer

All sorted.. thanks folks.

davo2001

Shane_ef wrote: »

All sorted.. thanks folks.

Ah jesus, at least tell us what the outcomes was!

Sterling Archer

But where's the craic in that haha.. one of the editors will be one to me about getting a few pound

Tenigate

Shane_ef wrote: »

All sorted.. thanks folks.

But your forgot to edit your opening post to a single dot?

Sterling Archer

Tenigate wrote: »

But your forgot to edit your opening post to a single dot?

On it like a car bonnet... changed now
Cheers

Effects

minikin wrote: »

Who needs the hassle 😀

Reverse image search.
Invoice for €100.
Sit back and watch the money roll in.


I invoiced someone who had used one of my photos without permission last year.
Their response was that they would need more photography in the future they could pay me for. I told them that would be great, but they still had to pay for the one they used without permission. I got paid but didn't get any more work from them.

tricky D

Tenigate wrote: »

It's a bit of a legal minefield.
If you posted it publicly they can argue that they had a right to use the photo. And you're uploading on Facebook's terms, not your own terms.

I think your next step is to figure out what you want. Attribution. Apology. A fee. Punitive damages.
You might give them a phonecall and offer them a chance to put things right.

RossieMan wrote: »

Put things right? He put it on Facebook, don't see why they need to offer anything. It's pretty free to use when it's up there. Removing the watermarks is a bit sketchy, I agree.

This is a common misconception. By using Facebook you assign certain rights to FB so that they can use it on the site and in things like promotional materials (rare). They do not have rights to exploit rights commercially like selling to media or selling photo prints. At all times you retain the full rights to an image unless you assign otherwise and taking pix off is a clear copyright breach.

From the horse's mouth; Our license or sublicense does not affect ownership or copyright privileges for material on the site. Facebook uses user content in connection with various features and services on the site (for example, displaying it in profile pages, photo pages, news feeds and other messages to users' friends, etc.).
https://www.facebook.com/notes/andy-rouse-photography/facebook-picture-rights/270204724175/

by8auj6csd3ioq

Put things right? He put it on Facebook, don't see why they need to offer anything. It's pretty free to use when it's up there. Removing the watermarks is a bit sketchy, I agree.

. i don't thik it is free to use when it is on facebook. It is free for facebook to licence it to anyone they wish but not free for a paper to pull it off facebook. Or did they licence it from facebook?

by8auj6csd3ioq

From the horse's mouth; Our license or sublicense does not affect ownership or copyright privileges for material on the site. Facebook uses user content in connection with various features and services on the site (for example, displaying it in profile pages, photo pages, news feeds and other messages to users' friends, etc.).
https://www.facebook.com/notes/andy-rouse-photography/facebook-picture-rights/270204724175/

does not affect ownership but they can licence them to whoever they like. So how does it work if they licence them to a paper before the uploader does?

tricky D

FB don't licence to 3rd parties for such exploitation as that is not in the agreement between the user and FB.

by8auj6csd3ioq

that is good my understanding was they do. i do not have facebook so would not know but many sites say facebook and twitter effectively own what is uploaded

fritzelly

It's par for the course where you upload an image to site you have given your consent for them to use it otherwise it would be pointless uploading any image.
Will be in their T&C and even the fact that you are uploading with the intention of the image being visible on the site means you have given them permission for it's use

But that does not give the website permission to then use those images outside of that sites normal practices i.e. letting third parties use it as a transferrable usage licence


But @Shane_ef
What was the outcome - good for a few drinks out?

tricky D

Kase Drab Owl wrote: »

but many sites say facebook and twitter effectively own what is uploaded

And they are wrong. Usage rights and ownership are not the same. asm they say themselves :Our license or sublicense does not affect ownership or copyright privileges for material on the site.

FB only uses content so that FB can function, with some leeway for promotional usage. They do not commercially exploit it ie. sell photo rights, as suggested.

AndrewJRenko

tricky D wrote: »

They do not commercially exploit it ie. sell photo rights, as suggested.

At the moment.

Sterling Archer

fritzelly wrote: »

It's par for the course where you upload an image to site you have given your consent for them to use it otherwise it would be pointless uploading any image.
Will be in their T&C and even the fact that you are uploading with the intention of the image being visible on the site means you have given them permission for it's use

But that does not give the website permission to then use those images outside of that sites normal practices i.e. letting third parties use it as a transferrable usage licence


But @Shane_ef
What was the outcome - good for a few drinks out?

Ya Sorted for a few pints (eventually)