Daily Mail have used my image without Permission

G

GlennBlackPhotos

Suspended / Banned
Messages
65
Name
Glenn
Edit My Images
No
Last edited:
And it's not just the Daily Fail, the Mirror had printed that very same black & white image on Page 19 of Tues 13th Aug's edition, took up half a page as well.
 
£40 for online use with the DM online. Give the picture desk a ring and ask them where to send the invoice to.
 
DemiLion said:
£40 for online use with the DM online. Give the picture desk a ring and ask them where to send the invoice to.
Click to expand...

half right

you dont send them an invoice...they know who you are because they added your name at the bottom left.. presuming your payment details are in wiht your copyright detaisl then they will simply pay you 40 quid..probably in a couple of months time..

the chances of a reply from any contact are less than slim....
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
Hi I wonder if anyone can advise me what to do please.
The DailyMailOnline have used an image of mine without asking.
Click to expand...

how do you mean without asking? they got is from somewhere.. was it not for sale or available for useage? was it just for show?

what i am saying is.. i ahve loads of pics out there.. all have my info in the exif.. nothing about people not allowed to sue them.. they can be used.. payment info in the exif.. presume thats where they got your copyright info from ?
 
This sort of thing happens quite often. Just contact them, go through the details and they'll pay.

Paul.
 
KIPAX said:
half right

you dont send them an invoice...they know who you are because they added your name at the bottom left.. presuming your payment details are in wiht your copyright detaisl then they will simply pay you 40 quid..probably in a couple of months time..

the chances of a reply from any contact are less than slim....
Click to expand...

KIPAX said:
how do you mean without asking? they got is from somewhere.. was it not for sale or available for useage? was it just for show?

what i am saying is.. i ahve loads of pics out there.. all have my info in the exif.. nothing about people not allowed to sue them.. they can be used.. payment info in the exif.. presume thats where they got your copyright info from ?
Click to expand...


The photo's been pulled from Flickr without permission Tony. They won't have any contact or payment details for him! :)
 
DemiLion said:
The photo's been pulled from Flickr without permission Tony. They won't have any contact or payment details for him! :)
Click to expand...

how do you know that? not disputing it..but theres only one post and no mention of where its come from... ?
 
aaaargh SORRY

its one of my worse thingies.. rush typing :( sorry
 
KIPAX said:
how do you know that? not disputing it..but theres only one post and no mention of where its come from... ?
Click to expand...

I made a mistake! There's a very similar image on his Flickr, but from a different angle and without the newspaper.

In which case it's likely to have come either from a model portfolio, or the model herself!

If it's been used without permission, I doubt that Glenn sent it to them.
 
DemiLion said:
I made a mistake! There's a very similar image on his Flickr, but from a different angle and without the newspaper.

In which case it's likely to have come either from a model portfolio, or the model herself!

If it's been used without permission, I doubt that Glenn sent it to them.
Click to expand...


the dailymail ahve put his copyright on the picture..to me it looks like they are doing it right.. they know its his.. they must have got that info from somwhere.. so i presum (posh for guess) thats in the exif.. therefore wouldnt other info be in there..

needs the op to clarify...
 
There is another possibility. It looks as though all of that set had a black border around them & the photographers name in the frame.

They've cropped that out and used the copyright detail.

The MoL have been doing this a lot recently; ie nicking photos and then adding a © credit in partial mitigation.

Keep an eye on their live footie feed. They've been taking photos from FA club's twitter and posting them as 'XYZ FC/Twitter'.


However, until Glenn bothers to come back and comment..... :)
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
There is another possibility. It looks as though all of that set had a black border around them & the photographers name in the frame.

They've cropped that out and used the copyright detail.

The MoL have been doing this a lot recently; ie nicking photos and then adding a © credit in partial mitigation.

Keep an eye on their live footie feed. They've been taking photos from FA club's twitter and posting them as 'XYZ FC/Twitter'.


However, until Glenn bothers to come back and comment..... :)
Click to expand...

I know when they used my pics and did NOT put my copyright info on.. they wernt paying me.. until i finally got hold of someone.. got paid and now whenevr they use mine they do exactly as above.. add my copyright and pay 40 quid a pic... so nothing to say they wont in this case ...but only if payment or contact details are in the exif eh ? :)
 
Thanks for the replies.
I can only assume the model has given them a copy of the pic as its not online for them to pull it off.
I have only put copyright and my name in the exif as I thought papers mags ect asked 1st before using an image.
I always include my name on all my images too.
I am away until September in my camper van in Spain so all this has blown up while I'm away!
I just checked my email today and got a random heads up.
My image has been used without permission!
I'm not sure how this copyright lark works but surely they can't just use my work on the assumption it ok to print it?
Has anyone got a copy of the paper please?
All the best.
 
Volunteer leaflet delivery girl and smoke alarm tester.... has her picture taken in her uniform, before taking it off for more pictures... posts copies of said pictures on social networking & punts them around in a portfolio trying to get modeling jobs....

Fire service decide they no longer require her services to test smoke alarms & deliver leaflets.

Ex Smoke alarm tester & leaflet delivery girl & aspiring model makes fuss, gives interview and gets her picture in the paper. grumbling about the outrageous action of the fire service....

Unknown flikr wanabee becomes storm in a tea-cup celebrity....

I think that about sums story up.

So... photographer now spots 'his' copyright photo in the paper...... and wants his slice of the pie....

Where did the Daily-Fail get the photo?

My bet would be the leaflet delivery & smoke alarm testing girl!

What 'rights' does the photographer have to get paid for the Dailyfail's use?

Well I would start by presuming that the leaflet girl gave the Daily-Fail the picture....

First port of call; ask her if she did.... provided of course she's not in some great humph over being fired from her paper-round over it....

Next; under what conditions was she provided with copies of the photo's of her?

If she had permission to use for 'personal use'... then Daily-Mail could get hard line and suggest that defending herself against unfair dismissal case, constituted 'personal use'... may be various other areas of contention under usage rights 'implied' when she was given copies.

Either which way, first point of contact is not the Daily-Fail or a solicitor, but the Smoke-Alarm girl....
 
The model was paid and signed a release.
I don't understand what a Flickr wannabe is I thought it was just a photo sharing site void of any status.
The photographer is wondering what's the point of copyright if newspapers that sell papers for money can use images they don't own.
Thanks.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Volunteer leaflet delivery girl and smoke alarm tester.... has her picture taken in her uniform, before taking it off for more pictures... posts copies of said pictures on social networking & punts them around in a portfolio trying to get modeling jobs....

Fire service decide they no longer require her services to test smoke alarms & deliver leaflets.

Ex Smoke alarm tester & leaflet delivery girl & aspiring model makes fuss, gives interview and gets her picture in the paper. grumbling about the outrageous action of the fire service....

Unknown flikr wanabee becomes storm in a tea-cup celebrity....

I think that about sums story up.

So... photographer now spots 'his' copyright photo in the paper...... and wants his slice of the pie....

Where did the Daily-Fail get the photo?

My bet would be the leaflet delivery & smoke alarm testing girl!

What 'rights' does the photographer have to get paid for the Dailyfail's use?

Well I would start by presuming that the leaflet girl gave the Daily-Fail the picture....

First port of call; ask her if she did.... provided of course she's not in some great humph over being fired from her paper-round over it....

Next; under what conditions was she provided with copies of the photo's of her?

If she had permission to use for 'personal use'... then Daily-Mail could get hard line and suggest that defending herself against unfair dismissal case, constituted 'personal use'... may be various other areas of contention under usage rights 'implied' when she was given copies.

Either which way, first point of contact is not the Daily-Fail or a solicitor, but the Smoke-Alarm girl....
Click to expand...

The thing is that the onus is on the publisher eg the papers to ensure they have the right to publish, so in this instance photographer bills paper, the paper can the choose if it wishes to bill the person that supplied them with the photo :)
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
The photographer is wondering what's the point of copyright if newspapers that sell papers for money can use images they don't own.
Click to expand...
Newspapers rarely 'own' the photo's they publish.

Copyright is merely a declaration of ownership; nothing more. Up to you, having asserted your ownership to police its use.

Whether a declared statement of copyright is made or not; publishers are required to take 'reasonable precaution' to ensure they have permission to use any picture they publish.

In this case, photo accompanied interview with smoke alarm girl, reasonable to presume that smoke-alarm girl provided photo to paper.

Hence first port of call is smoke-alarm girl to confirm this.

GlennBlackPhotos said:
The model was paid and signed a release.
Click to expand...

Y-E-S... and that provides YOU with what? Model release is contract between you and model' lets you sell photos that contain her image, & may provide limits to what use they may be put etc.

That is NOT the issue here; the issue is IF you gave her copies of those photos.... and if she then gave those photo's to the Daily-Fail... what RIGHTS did you give her to use those photo's... explicitly or implied; whether in you contract with her, verbally, in writing whether part of waiver or not.

You have copy-right to your images; but IF you have given some-one copies of those photo's and told them they can do what ever they want with them.... they can DO WHAT THEY LIKE with them!

WHAT limitations of use did you put on those photo's when you gave copies to Smoke Alarm Girl?

And DID she give that photo to the paper?

THAT is where you start.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
And DID she give that photo to the paper?

THAT is where you start.
Click to expand...

Unlikely:
clare deloughrey ‏@CDeloughrey 12 Aug

@sucksfacebook that's what I'm doing as they haven't asked my other photographer for the pics they just used them

@cockoil they are taking my pictures off my facebook and using them with out asking cheeky gets
Click to expand...
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
Hi I wonder if anyone can advise me what to do please.
The DailyMailOnline have used an image of mine without asking.
It clearly has the copyright notice too.
Click to expand...

Demand they should be sacked! And lose all their pension rights!

In fact they should probably put in prison for a LONG time!

That'll learn 'em! It's the only language they understand!!
 
I have not permitted anyone to use my pics model or otherwise.
Even if I allowed a model to use a pic strictly for her portfolio (which I have not)that does not permit the papers to further use my clearly copyrighted image for business use to sell a story.
The model has also stated she did not give the images out to the papers.
What shall I invoice the mirror for printing my image in the paper?

From what I gather the new laws that have been pass clearly state the owner of orphan works must be attempted to be found before use.
In my case the mail and mirror have took my images used them when a little google using my name on the pics followed by photographer will find me but they have not bothered!
Thanks.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Unknown flikr wanabee becomes storm in a tea-cup celebrity....

I think that about sums story up.

.
Click to expand...

Blimey, harsh much? Jeez.
Try going back to bed and then getting out the other side. :lol:
 
Mystery57 said:
Out of curiosity, is there any simple way of monitoring if your photos have been used anywhere, short of visiting every site and publication individually ?
Click to expand...

there are a couple of sites you can upload your photos to that will search out their use on the web

tineye and also google images may well do it
 
Yo Tef didn't realise you were on here, you posts here are shorter than on BCF :-P
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
I have not permitted anyone to use my pics model or otherwise.
Even if I allowed a model to use a pic strictly for her portfolio (which I have not)that does not permit the papers to further use my clearly copyrighted image for business use to sell a story.
The model has also stated she did not give the images out to the papers.
What shall I invoice the mirror for printing my image in the paper?

From what I gather the new laws that have been pass clearly state the owner of orphan works must be attempted to be found before use.
In my case the mail and mirror have took my images used them when a little google using my name on the pics followed by photographer will find me but they have not bothered!
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Stop confusing yourself with irrelevant BS.

Phone the paper(s) up and talk to them.
 
chris-red said:
Yo Tef didn't realise you were on here, you posts here are shorter than on BCF :-P
Click to expand...
You obviousely don't visit Film & Conventional....
But then, many of my posts on BCF are fairly concise... people only remark on the big ones.
Or so the lady's tell me...;)
 
Teflon-Mike said:
Newspapers rarely 'own' the photo's they publish.

Copyright is merely a declaration of ownership; nothing more. Up to you, having asserted your ownership to police its use.

Whether a declared statement of copyright is made or not; publishers are required to take 'reasonable precaution' to ensure they have permission to use any picture they publish.

In this case, photo accompanied interview with smoke alarm girl, reasonable to presume that smoke-alarm girl provided photo to paper.

Hence first port of call is smoke-alarm girl to confirm this.



Y-E-S... and that provides YOU with what? Model release is contract between you and model' lets you sell photos that contain her image, & may provide limits to what use they may be put etc.

That is NOT the issue here; the issue is IF you gave her copies of those photos.... and if she then gave those photo's to the Daily-Fail... what RIGHTS did you give her to use those photo's... explicitly or implied; whether in you contract with her, verbally, in writing whether part of waiver or not.

You have copy-right to your images; but IF you have given some-one copies of those photo's and told them they can do what ever they want with them.... they can DO WHAT THEY LIKE with them!

WHAT limitations of use did you put on those photo's when you gave copies to Smoke Alarm Girl?

And DID she give that photo to the paper?

THAT is where you start.Thanks for the sentiment but you are way off the mark!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top