Copyright ( ADVICE )

G

ghostdancer

Suspended / Banned
Messages
835
Name
William(friends Call Me Bill)
Edit My Images
Yes
Hope someone may be able to help me out,my daughter took a photo of her boyfriends band and posted it on Facebook,the photo was used in the NME music magazine,did they need to ask for her permission to use the photo,much thanks Bill.
 
Hmm, tricky area, if she posted it on NME's facebook page, there may be something on it where they ask you post your shots & they pick them for publication, but it should be stated. If so, they would probably just credit the shot.
You would need to check what it says.
 
whipspeed said:
Hmm, tricky area, if she posted it on NME's facebook page, there may be something on it where they ask you post your shots & they pick them for publication, but it should be stated. If so, they would probably just credit the shot.
You would need to check what it says.
Click to expand...
Thank you Sarah for the reply,the photo was posted on the bands Facebook page not the NME.
 
In that case if she wants, she will need to write to the editor and say that she had not given permission for her image to be used in the magazine & she could attach an invoice for usage. Make it a sensible amount, based on the size used in the magazine. You can get rates from the NUJ website, but they are on the high side, so use with discretion.
Also state that the image may not be used in future without credit or payment.
I would then advise her to maybe put a copyright mark on the images on facebook.

However, it is a double edged sword, as the band could be said to be getting free mass market publicity, so maybe not worth chasing & just copyrighting the images against future use.
 
You might also want to have her check they weren't given the image by someone in or related to the band.
 
I think unless you are a pro some magazines and papers think that they can use your images at will, I had one of mine used by the Sunday post three weeks ago and the only contact I had was an email from a reporter saying that "we intend using your image in the Sunday Post, would you like crediting" so I mailed back saying actually I would like some money. They never answered me back and they used my image anyway.
I reckon that they know legwork involved with the invoicing and probable tax implications are enough to put the average joe off persuing them, where as a pro relying on his images to pay his mortgage is not such an easy target. so dont expect the NME to be too worried.
 
DazJW said:
You might also want to have her check they weren't given the image by someone in or related to the band.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.

paulc said:
I think unless you are a pro some magazines and papers think that they can use your images at will, I had one of mine used by the Sunday post three weeks ago and the only contact I had was an email from a reporter saying that "we intend using your image in the Sunday Post, would you like crediting" so I mailed back saying actually I would like some money. They never answered me back and they used my image anyway.
I reckon that they know legwork involved with the invoicing and probable tax implications are enough to put the average joe off persuing them, where as a pro relying on his images to pay his mortgage is not such an easy target. so dont expect the NME to be too worried.
Click to expand...

Small claims court, shouldn't take too much effort.
 
Thank you everyone for the vital information.
 
neil_g said:
Doesn't matter.
.
Click to expand...

not legally - but if the band gave the photo to NME, and she gets it taken down her boyfreind could be somewhat irked

it would be wise to check the what and how before going off halfcocked
 
big soft moose said:
not legally - but if the band gave the photo to NME, and she gets it taken down her boyfreind could be somewhat irked

it would be wise to check the what and how before going off halfcocked
Click to expand...

Yes, to clarify I was taking about in regard to copyright and not maintaining relationships :D
 
a) Find out how they got the photo (ie was it ripped or did a member of the band pass it on).

b) When you've established that; phone NME, ask them what their standard rates are and who to send the invoice to for usage (as long as they weren't given the pic).
Don't get shirty with them unless they start claiming that they won't pay.
 
neil_g said:
Small claims court, shouldn't take too much effort.
Click to expand...

Not small claims court, they don't know anything about copyright or intellectual property rights. You need the Patents County Court, but use the Small Claims Track there.
 
SimonH said:
Not small claims court, they don't know anything about copyright or intellectual property rights. You need the Patents County Court, but use the Small Claims Track there.
Click to expand...

definately not the way to go for a few images used by a paper, especially since both parties are most likely going to pay for thier own costs at the Patents County Court. It does not exactly make it an appealing process to the wronged photographer, unless ofcourse they have snaffled a shot of Kylie minogue french kissing Hally Berry I reckon the media know that its too much hassle to persue them.
 
paulc said:
definately not the way to go for a few images used by a paper, especially since both parties are most likely going to pay for thier own costs at the Patents County Court. It does not exactly make it an appealing process to the wronged photographer, unless ofcourse they have snaffled a shot of Kylie minogue french kissing Hally Berry I reckon the media know that its too much hassle to persue them.
Click to expand...

Following several other topics on this subject here in recent weeks, my understanding is that changes made to the process in the last couple of months - specifically the small claims track - have made things much more simple and much more viable for wronged photographers.
 
I'm pretty sure Facebook terms and conditions have a clause that when you post a photo on Facebook the copyright an use of the Image is transferred from the user anyway not 100% but I'm sure I have seen it before
 
Found it basically by posting they can do what they like with it.


"When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and
direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in
order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content
on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you
automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you
have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable,
perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide
license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly
perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in
whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any
purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion
thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into
other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize"
sublicenses of the foregoing.

Well that's how I read it maybe some else may be of difference of opinion.
 
Pmc2011 said:
Found it basically by posting they can do what they like with it.


"When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and
direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in
order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content
on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you
automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you
have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable,
perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide
license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly
perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in
whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any
purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion
thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into
other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize"
sublicenses of the foregoing.

Well that's how I read it maybe some else may be of difference of opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that just gives Facebook the right to use an image for an advert if they wish to, it doesn't give any other person or company rights to your image
 
Pmc2011 said:
Found it basically by posting they can do what they like with it.


"When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and
direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in
order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content
on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you
automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you
have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable,
perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide
license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly
perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in
whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any
purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion
thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into
other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize"
sublicenses of the foregoing.

Well that's how I read it maybe some else may be of difference of opinion.
Click to expand...
Well then you read it wrong.;)
Transfer of copyright would involve you giving them the right to sell your images to 3rd parties (not covered) telling you that you could no longer sell or display them elsewhere (any mention).
Look again, is there any way that Facebook could display your pictures for you without those terms? About the only questionable issue is that you're allowing FB to use your pictures in their advertising if they want.

So of the hundreds of thousands of pictures posted every day, what's the chances of them randomly picking your images?
 
I thank everyone for there input and valuable information,the situation has become delicate because of it being my daughter's boyfriends band so she has decided not to pursue it as she does not want to rock the boat excuse the pun,I personally think that magazines who do this are a little bit naughty to think they have the right,thanks again to everyone.
 
ghostdancer said:
I thank everyone for there input and valuable information,the situation has become delicate because of it being my daughter's boyfriends band so she has decided not to pursue it as she does not want to rock the boat excuse the pun,I personally think that magazines who do this are a little bit naughty to think they have the right,thanks again to everyone.
Click to expand...

I can understand this decision, even though there is no question that NME - as any other magazine/publication who does the same - deserves to be punished for breaking a law they certainly know they're breaking.

NME is good exposure for a band which is starting out (I'm assuming your daughter isn't dating someone from U2) and on balance it's possible that the benefit in this instance may outweigh the crime. If the relationship between your daughter and her boyfriend didn't exist, different story. :)
 
ghostdancer said:
I thank everyone for there input and valuable information,the situation has become delicate because of it being my daughter's boyfriends band so she has decided not to pursue it as she does not want to rock the boat excuse the pun,I personally think that magazines who do this are a little bit naughty to think they have the right,thanks again to everyone.
Click to expand...

Did the band provide the photo?

If not, then I cannot see how sending a simple invoice for use would cause any problems? NME magazine have been around long enough to know the score in this.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Did the band provide the photo?

If not, then I cannot see how sending a simple invoice for use would cause any problems? NME magazine have been around long enough to know the score in this.
Click to expand...

I'd assume the issue is that the usual response to an invoice for use in these circumstances is for the website to remove the photo.

the girls boyfreind and his mates are probably happy that their band is on the NME website regardless of how it got there , and may not respond well to it being taken down as a result of her seeking payment.

in those circumstances its easy to see how the young lady could value stability in her relationship, and her boyfreinds happiness more highly than a few quid for usage
 
big soft moose said:
I'd assume the issue is that the usual response to an invoice for use in these circumstances is for the website to remove the photo.

the girls boyfreind and his mates are probably happy that their band is on the NME website regardless of how it got there , and may not respond well to it being taken down as a result of her seeking payment.

in those circumstances its easy to see how the young lady could value stability in her relationship, and her boyfreinds happiness more highly than a few quid for usage
Click to expand...

I thought the OP said they were used in the magazine, which makes it much harder for them to take the photo down...

If online only, yea, probably not a good plan as they can just take it offline.
 
:bonk: you're right its in the magazine - my bad (I'd read the second part about it being on the NME facebook page and confuzzled myself)

still i'd can see why the Boyf wouldnt want her rocking the boat with NME - especially if he believes that this is their launchpad to becoming the next big thing (:lol:)
 
kestral said:
Correct 100% :thumbs: Forget this business about the patents court. :nono:
Click to expand...

If you want your case screwed up, that's a cracking idea.

There's a reason that the small claims track has opened up in the Patents Court.
 
Marc.W said:
I'm pretty sure that just gives Facebook the right to use an image for an advert if they wish to, it doesn't give any other person or company rights to your image
Click to expand...

That is just so they are covered when your image appears in multiple locations when someone shares it.


Steve.
 
DemiLion said:
If you want your case screwed up, that's a cracking idea.

There's a reason that the small claims track has opened up in the Patents Court.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: anyone who doesnt believe Mark can always ask Andy (asphotographymk) about his experience with small claims court. :bang:

In short standard small claims and money claim is there to deal with money owed in breach of contract - if someone has ripped an image and infringed your copyright they do not have a contract with you. You can (and should) send them an invoice for usage , but as no contract exists, you can't easily ask a small claims court to enforce payment.

The Patent court is there to deal with breaches of patent and copyright , and the small claims track there has ben specifically designed to deal with small cases of that nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top