Invoicing for unauthorised image use on an xmas card?

ding76uk said:
Where am I making assumptions? Facts are what I posted Splog.
Click to expand...


Just who is it that is using my work? And who is it that is using me?

Also you assume I love givng away my work

Quite afew assumptions there! I see no facts,
 
cambsno said:
This is not meant to be a dig at the OP, but...

If you want to earn money out of photography, make sure you set up prices and T&Cs at the start. This may have prevented the episode, or at least given you a cast iron case. What would your defence had been, had you trodden on the cat and the owner made you pay for vets bills? Do you have insurance, or would you just say its for fun? Cant have it both ways...

Carl, agree with you in principle, but the OP gave the images away in the first place, so do they have a value?
Click to expand...

You are aware though that the person he gave the images to isn't the one that's had them printed, nor did he give them away? Someone's stolen them, didn't ask permission, didn't worry about who took them, they just stole them. I don't see how having T&Cs in place would have prevented anything bearing in mind the person that took them probably had no idea who took the images in the first place.

If I took some pictures of my nephew for my sister that were then stuck on Facebook and stolen by someone to print on a whole load of Christmas cards, I wouldn't be happy at all, despite the fact I'd given them to her. Ditto with friends, I don't charge friends for portraits of their kids, doesn't mean I don't value the work that I produce or am giving someone licence to rip it off for their own means.

And a massive :D to the poster who mentioned them suing him in return for taking pictures of a cat that they don't actually own. There's a chance they may have bred the thing and sold it to his neighbour, but I don't think the laws of copyright extend to cat ownership.
 
String said:
One question. Forgive me I'm new and I know its not really my business, but I'm interested.

Is the OP a professional photographer?
Click to expand...

That doesn't affect the copyright, the photographer owns the copyright and the image can't be reproduced without his/her consent.
There are some circumstances where a photographer is employed that affect copyright but it doesn't apply here.
 
swanseamale47 said:
That doesn't affect the copyright, the photographer owns the copyright and the image can't be reproduced without his/her consent.
There are some circumstances where a photographer is employed that affect copyright but it doesn't apply here.
Click to expand...

No, I realise that entirely. Just because we aren't pros, doesn't mean we are all entirely thick :)

I've only been taking photographs for 30 years or so and have a lot to learn :)
 
Last edited:
nikonuser said:
Be thankful that someone likes your photos and move on.
I had it happen to me with a Spanish magazine and some web images of the Easter Parade. They agreed to acknowledge that they were my photographs and I was more than happy.
Click to expand...

A similar thing happened to me a while back, when a french magazine published a photo I'd taken of my friend who happens to be a well known actress. The guys on this forum suggested that I should have been paid. I contacted the magazine and finally got some money from them. I was grateful to the advice given to me on this forum. But are these breeders selling these cards? If not, maybe you should just ask for some kind of acknowledgement, and ask them politely not to use your images again unless you give them your permission.
 
1) Was the photo given to the friend via email then put up on facebook, or was the photo put up on facebook by the OP, with the breeder then taking the image off of facebook through comments etc.?

2) How is the breeder using the photo? Is it a single card for the owners of the cat, a run of cards for all customers, or being used elsewhere as well e.g. on the breeder's website (if there is one)?
 
Splog said:
And what you don't understand is I only commented on giving away work, nothing to do with theft or copyright.
Click to expand...

But what does that have to do with the point of the original post ?

Whether the work was given away or paid for doesn't make it right for another party to copy it from a Facebook page and use for their own gain.

Professional/amateur tog, paid or unpaid doesn't make any difference to what has been done. We are talking about the Holy Grail of photographers rights here....

Steve
 
Jelster said:
Whether the work was given away or paid for doesn't make it right for another party to copy it from a Facebook page and use for their own gain.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point, as the op hasn't come back with a reply we don't know whether the breeder did use the picture "for their own gain", all we know is that the breeder sent one card to the owner of the cat with a picture taken from the cat owner's Facebook page.

In no way could that be considered a situation where the breeder has made any pecuniary gain.
 
String said:
No, I realise that entirely. Just because we aren't pros, doesn't mean we are all entirely thick :)

I've only been taking photographs for 30 years or so and have a lot to learn :)
Click to expand...

You did say you were new, I took that to mean new to photography.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
That's the whole point, as the op hasn't come back with a reply we don't know whether the breeder did use the picture "for their own gain", all we know is that the breeder sent one card to the owner of the cat with a picture taken from the cat owner's Facebook page.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I've given this thread up as a lost cause Graham.
No sign of Ryan posting back yet, and too many people are so entrenched in their own position that they're making sweeping assumptions one way or the other to back up their own argument.

I wouldn't blame Ryan for ducking out of this completely.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
That's the whole point, as the op hasn't come back with a reply we don't know whether the breeder did use the picture "for their own gain", all we know is that the breeder sent one card to the owner of the cat with a picture taken from the cat owner's Facebook page.

In no way could that be considered a situation where the breeder has made any pecuniary gain.
Click to expand...


Indeed, all I can conclude is the friend received one xmas card of their cat from a breeder.

Who would want that cat on a card except the owner of the cat? An image already given free to that owner from the OP.

Of course copyright has been infringed, of course the owner has the right to persue it - but is it worth the hassle in this instance?

I think Copyright should become a STICKY and all future threads locked and refered to sticky. Its as bad as Politics. They always end up this way even without full evidence of what has gone on - like the 'Tesco reprinted my images' one from the other day.

Anyway, Merry Xmas one and all....
 
Just Dave said:
Dont you just love it when that happens :bang:
Click to expand...

Oh it's just magical!

Edit - Deleted irrelevant childish rant.

I think we need to wait and get all the facts before any 'judgement' can be made. We are arguing over 2 or 3 possible scenarios, depending on which it is i think everyone has made valid points, no-one wants there images to be stolen and made money out of, but we all know when it comes to friends, there is usually some grey areas (emotionally more than legally ofcourse). I think what the breeder did was wrong
but whether its a bit naughty, damn cheeky or blatant theft is hard to judge as the OP really knows the ins and outs of the relationships of the people involved, what was said and what wasnt.

Ade
 
Last edited:
Splog said:
Just who is it that is using my work? And who is it that is using me?

Also you assume I love givng away my work

Quite afew assumptions there! I see no facts,
Click to expand...

I said nothing about yourself Splog and Merely asked your opinion, which you have not gotten and have got defensive.

Here is what i Posted

What is your take on things like this Splog? You like giving away your images?
Click to expand...

The only point directed at yourself, and again it is a question. I am interested in your opinion.
 
ding76uk said:
You are being used by someone for their personal gain!

Other people use your work to make money for themselves and give you nothing!

Copyright infringement is, and that is what this amounts to, is easy to prove and therefore the guy using the images broke the law!

These are facts Splog

I love the way so many of you love giving your work away for free. There must be a lot of rich people on here. Not wanting to get paid when it is within your rights to do so seems stupid.

No point discussing this, as it is pointless trying to converse with those who do not want to listen.

What is your take on things like this Splog? You like giving away your images?
Click to expand...

ding76uk said:
I said nothing about yourself Splog and Merely asked your opinion, which you have not gotten and have got defensive.

Here is what i Posted



The only point directed at yourself, and again it is a question. I am interested in your opinion.
Click to expand...

I said you had made assumptions! And as you can see from th first quote here.... that is exactly what you did.

My point was that if people want to give away their work then they can and should not feel belittled for doing so!
 
Splog said:
I said you had made assumptions! And as you can see from th first quote here.... that is exactly what you did.

My point was that if people want to give away their work then they can and should not feel belittled for doing so!
Click to expand...

No I stated the facts in that first quote.

The OP came on here with whether he should be seeking payment for image use, and yes he should.

Where in this thread have I belittled people who give away their work for free?

I would rather see people paid for their work rather than being taken advantage of, but you seem to be all for that, which is fine.

A photographer has had his work used without asking. That is the major issue here.

As I have asked before I was interested in your take on things, but you seem much more interested in attacking anyone who disagrees with your point of view. As every time this comes up there are people who are unwilling to listen to anything bar their own point of view. If everyone except you is being paid out of a deal, you have to ask yourself, who is the mug in the situation?
 
awp said:
Have you read the thread??
Click to expand...

Yes, and in and amongst the name calling what I established was that

The OP took a photo of the neighbours cat.

then

1) The OP sent the picture to the neighbour via email/non-facebook means
or
2) The OP uploaded the picture to facebook, where the neighbour saw it

then

1) The cat owner uploaded the photo to facebook
or
2) The cat breeder saw the photo through the owners profile

then

a) A christmas card with the photo on was sent to the owners of the cat as a specialised 1-off for only the owners of the cat.
b) A christmas card was sent with the photo on to the owners of the cat as part of a batch of christmas cards sent to all customers of the breeder.
c) The breeder used the image multiple times, on a batch of christmas cards, perhaps a website etc. including a christmas card.

Sorry if I missed anything in the thread which stated conclusively otherwise.

If it ends with a), then I wouldn't bother.
If it ends with b), then if it started with 1) I wouldn't bother
If it ends with c), then I'd give them a call and offer services or an invoice.

Also, from a legal standpoint it depends on facebook's copyright policy for images and who uploaded the image to facebook, but legal standpoints aren't really relevant over £100.
 
ding76uk said:
No I stated the facts in that first quote.

The OP came on here with whether he should be seeking payment for image use, and yes he should.

Where in this thread have I belittled people who give away their work for free?

I would rather see people paid for their work rather than being taken advantage of, but you seem to be all for that, which is fine.

A photographer has had his work used without asking. That is the major issue here.

As I have asked before I was interested in your take on things, but you seem much more interested in attacking anyone who disagrees with your point of view. As every time this comes up there are people who are unwilling to listen to anything bar their own point of view. If everyone except you is being paid out of a deal, you have to ask yourself, who is the mug in the situation?
Click to expand...

:lol: You referred to me at least four times in that post and said it was fact! Then said you weren't prepared to discuss further!

Refering to someone as a mug! is not belitting them ? And just how have I attacked anyone?
 
The mug comment was a rhetorical question that people should always ask themselves before giving away work. Not aimed at anyone.

I have time and time asked for your opinion, but you never seem to give it just get defensive, state how I don't understand how people are happy to see their name in print. Of course I do, everyone does. There is only one thing better than seeing your name in print, is seeing it in print and getting a nice little payment for your troubles.

As I state in my blog post, there is doing free work and their is being taken advantage of. I just don't like to see people get taken advantage of.
 
Without more information it's all speculation but it is possible the breeder would use a specific cat on lots of cards, if the cat shows classic characteristics of that breed or if the picture works well as a christmas card (it may have a santa hat on for all we know).
I argree it would be nice to see the pic concerned and hear back from the op.
 
I'm going to agree with Kipax, why not pop over to the breeder and explain the situation to them. Get a copy of the card and see what their intention was with the card. Normally Christmas cards from companies are there for advertisement. If they weren't, the breeder would use a bog standard off the shelf card from a shop, not go through the effort of designing and printing cards for their customers.

loplyg said:
For god sake stop being greedy.

You gave them some photos you took for fun and they printed them on a Christmas card?

Be flattered, not greedy. This sounds like a great way to make them hate you and they probably wont pay up anyway.

If you want to make money from photos then find a professional way to do it. Don't wait for an innocent act by a previously-friendly neighbor then pounce on them quoting copyright law and demanding a nominal sum of money out of principle.
Click to expand...

They will have to pay up or face court. I'd also like to ask, how is this greedy? It costs every time one presses a shutter release. Camera bodies, lenses, flash guns, batteries and other equipment only have a certain lifespan.


loplyg said:
The way I see it - it's only a copyright issue if we're talking about a professional photographer here.

Copyright was designed to protect professionals from lost income due to copying.

If you never had ANY intentions of making money off the picture then stop trying to abuse a practical law for reasons of principle, and try being a friendly citizen instead.
Click to expand...

Copyright was designed to protect everyone, not just businesses, from having their creativity copied. That is why in law, the author, unless employed, owns the first copyright to any artistic works.

Abuse of the law comes from companies and individuals who try to enforce the law on others without having the authority to do such. It is not an abuse of law to abide by and utilise it with the legal authority to do so. There are many aspects of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 that extend beyond simply copying of artistic works. Things like moral issues and how artistic works are used, what they convey in context and whether that is detrimental to the author or whether it is morally unacceptable to the author. An example would be a photographer who sued a pornographic producer for using her image on their DVD. She was a private individual whose creativity was copied and distributed without a care as to what the author thought.

Further things Copyright law enable are the free usage of sound recordings for background music at clubs, the usage of copyrighted materials in educational establishments and the lawful ability to make back up copies of computer programs. (S. 67, S. 32-36A, S. 50A Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988)


cambsno said:
Now that to me implies that the images were given electronically. Well, when I sell electronic images, they include copyright. If there is an issue here then its with the kitten owner and the breeder as the kitten owner owns copyright, no?
Click to expand...
Simply? No. The kitten owner, or any other model for that matter, has no interest, ownership, claim to or over any photograph taken of them or their property unless agreed with the original owner of copyright. Models can object to their image being used only if it is being used in a libellous manner.

GoNz0 said:
if i was the breeder and got a bill i would send one for back for 5 times the price via a legal firm for using the cat as a model. tread carefully or you could wind up with this backfiring.
Click to expand...
I would hope the legal firm would tell you that you were stark raving mad. Firstly, you have sold property or otherwise transferred the ownership of property to someone else. It is no longer yours to protect. Secondly, you have no rights over an image, whether you or your property is depicted or not.

Copyright law in the United Kingdom is exceptionally straight forward. The person who creates the art is the owner unless they are employed. Copyright is akin to property, you can sell it, transfer it, rent it, or leave it in a cupboard for the rest of your life.

gabe said:
A similar thing happened to me a while back, when a french magazine published a photo I'd taken of my friend who happens to be a well known actress. The guys on this forum suggested that I should have been paid. I contacted the magazine and finally got some money from them. I was grateful to the advice given to me on this forum. But are these breeders selling these cards? If not, maybe you should just ask for some kind of acknowledgement, and ask them politely not to use your images again unless you give them your permission.
Click to expand...
I remember that! I'm glad you got the issue resolved in the end :)
 
Last edited:
awp said:
Lots of bad advice here. Send an invoice!
Click to expand...

wheres your christmas spirit vic?

or should i say scrooge :lol:

agree with others, if the breeder isnt making any money from the image and it was given for free then just walk away.
 
There is a very disappointing lack of puns in this thread. For instance someone could have said :

"You should go and see the breeder to ask that they put a little money in the kitty" or

"Hopefully they'll only use the image for the card and not put it in their cat-alogue" or

"Hope you're not feline too upset about it".

I resisted a pussy one.

Come on people, up your game.
 
Lasagne said:
There is a very disappointing lack of puns in this thread. For instance someone could have said :

"You should go and see the breeder to ask that they put a little money in the kitty" or

"Hopefully they'll only use the image for the card and not put it in their cat-alogue" or

"Hope you're not feline too upset about it".

I resisted a pussy one.

Come on people, up your game.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.... not a Capital FM listener by any chance??? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top