laws on newspapers

scottishpaul

scottishpaul

Suspended / Banned
Messages
169
Name
paul
Edit My Images
Yes
so theres a big cofufle right now. and im probably going to be in some trouble etc so im not going to tell the story apart from the fact now:

my photos are in the local newspaper (4 of them) first and 3rd page. which they took for another internet forum im a member of. with my user name so im getting bombarded with people asking if it was me etc.

so just wondernig whats the law on a newspaper taking my photos of a internet forum and then printing them?
not that im going to do anything about it i just want to know where i stand on things like this?

first photo published though?:clap:
 
It is illegal! They have violated (stolen) your copyright - you should send them a BILL without delay - they don't have a leg to stand on. Happens all the time - I always invoice - twice the going rate as a penalty and they always pay up.
 
Ditto! It's illegal, invoice with unlicensed usage penalty.

Although if it is something you shouldn't have taken in the first place it might be a bit different...
 
i second that! the papers should ALWAYS be made to pay!!
 
:agree: :agree: :agree:

You should always invoice papers, they are ******** at the best of times :bat::rules:
 
check your forum terms and conditions... did you sign all your rights away to anything you post when you joined?
 
I got a phone call on wed morning... a newspaper over liverpool way... got a picture of mine off the newpaper i work for.. they used it as they where on last minute and asked if i could send them an invoice for 35 quid.. (its a regional so that price is right)

not all papers try to rip people off :)
 
its safe enough now to recolect on the story.
well a week or 2 ago we ventured to an abondend swimming pool and took some photos inside. and then i posted them up on 28days later the urban exploring. they have been up over a week now.
3 o clock today im doing college work and i get a phone call saying im in the newspaper.
they had went onto urban explorers website, misquoted things i said a little. printed 4 of my photos. one one the front page and 3 on the third page. saying we had "broke in" when really a door was open and we walked in etc.
but it qoutes my user name several times which is the same for my msn address roughly so im getting everyone asking me "is that about you in the courier?"

theyve made it look as if we were on a heist of some sort. when really took some photos then left. but just wondering from a public forum are they allowed to just take my pictures and print them.

thats like somebody coming on here. going to xxxxx section taking a couple photos and printing them. doesnt say at all photos by such and such. as they were the photos i took inside they have printed.
 
Big invoice for use of your photos then, and if you feel inclined a conversation with a lawyer about defamation of character or anything if you feel like stirring it a bit, probably wouldn't get anywhere if it doesn't say your actual name, but don't think they have a leg to stand on with using your photos.
 
scottishpaul said:
its safe enough now to recolect on the story.
well a week or 2 ago we ventured to an abondend swimming pool and took some photos inside. and then i posted them up on 28days later the urban exploring. they have been up over a week now.
3 o clock today im doing college work and i get a phone call saying im in the newspaper.
they had went onto urban explorers website, misquoted things i said a little. printed 4 of my photos. one one the front page and 3 on the third page. saying we had "broke in" when really a door was open and we walked in etc.
but it qoutes my user name several times which is the same for my msn address roughly so im getting everyone asking me "is that about you in the courier?"

theyve made it look as if we were on a heist of some sort. when really took some photos then left. but just wondering from a public forum are they allowed to just take my pictures and print them.

thats like somebody coming on here. going to xxxxx section taking a couple photos and printing them. doesnt say at all photos by such and such. as they were the photos i took inside they have printed.
Click to expand...

Careful here then - sounds like you may not have had the right to enter the property? Sending them an invoice for the pictures is like admitting to this I would think....

Just because the door was open doesn't give you the right to enter the property, and I know there are lots of people who would have done the same thing for a photo opportunity, but still....
 
OutLore said:
Careful here then - sounds like you may not have had the right to enter the property? Sending them an invoice for the pictures is like admitting to this I would think....

Just because the door was open doesn't give you the right to enter the property, and I know there are lots of people who would have done the same thing for a photo opportunity, but still....
Click to expand...
Neither does it give the paper the right to steal the photographs!
 
There have been previous threads along these lines, I know. The trouble with some of the sites that let you upload and store images is that you grant them the right to do anything they like with your pics - including selling them! So be warned, and be choosy!
Andy.
 
they photos were stored on my flickr acount and linked to 28dayslater.com
the paper in question shall rename nameless at the time being. as you never know this guy could be tracing me down some more
although it said the police have no recieved a complain but the council are told to be looking into it
 
flickr is the PROBLEM - read the small print then AVOID like the plague!
 
its illegal and they know it so sue them.

scottishpaul said:
so theres a big cofufle right now. and im probably going to be in some trouble etc so im not going to tell the story apart from the fact now:

my photos are in the local newspaper (4 of them) first and 3rd page. which they took for another internet forum im a member of. with my user name so im getting bombarded with people asking if it was me etc.

so just wondernig whats the law on a newspaper taking my photos of a internet forum and then printing them?
not that im going to do anything about it i just want to know where i stand on things like this?

first photo published though?:clap:
Click to expand...
 
Please name and shame the paper if its ok for them to spread false stories about breaking in (unless they have proof) then its ok for you to tell the facts and name the paper who STOLE your images.

PLEASE NAME AND SHAME :rules:
 
You cannot be jailed or anything series for trespass so I shouldn't worry too much...if anything it'll be the council at the dogs for allowing access to what would be classed as a dangerous building.

Invoice them :) I used to regular 28 days and plenty of the guys have had pics in the paper and invoiced with little or no problems! Also, perhaps demand an apology in the following weeks paper for the misrepresentation??
 
although as much as i would love it. they obviously found me on urban explorers and stole stuff from there. next thing this guy will be publishing stuff about me on here.
i was ****ing myself laughing when i was reading the newspaper. i cant beleive i got front page and third. but they printed the photos that i took inside as showing we have been there. which clearly they cant just take my photos and put em in?
 
awp said:
flickr is the PROBLEM - read the small print then AVOID like the plague!
Click to expand...

Want to expand on that in any way? Flickr DO NOT hold any rights over your images as far as I am aware.

EDIT - also if you want the paper to remain nameless then you might want to take it out of your second post :p
 
With respect to Content you elect to post for inclusion in publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups or that consists of photos or other graphics you elect to post to any other publicly accessible area of the Service, you grant Yahoo! a world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish such Content on the Service solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted, or, in the case of photos or graphics, solely for the purpose for which such photo or graphic was submitted to the Service. This licence exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and shall be terminated at the time you delete such Content from the Service.
 
That basically gives them the right by law to display photos that you submit to Flickr, including via their API providers.

It doesn't say they own copyright, or that they can sell them.

They need the royalty free non exclusive bit to display your photos on their website.

:)
 
awp said:
With respect to Content you elect to post for inclusion in publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups or that consists of photos or other graphics you elect to post to any other publicly accessible area of the Service, you grant Yahoo! a world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish such Content on the Service solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted, or, in the case of photos or graphics, solely for the purpose for which such photo or graphic was submitted to the Service. This licence exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and shall be terminated at the time you delete such Content from the Service.
Click to expand...

The important bit here is

"solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted"

if it nots to promote Flickr, or closely associated product, they can't use it. They certainly can't sell the photo on, or allow other people to use it
 
OutLore said:
I didn't say it did - but sending them an invoice for the use of the pictures is possible admittance of trespass...
Click to expand...

Which isn't a criminal offense.
 
hyakuhei said:
Which isn't a criminal offense.
Click to expand...

So? I'm not saying it is....:thinking: But because it's not a criminal offense doesn't make it right....

I would rather not have my name all over the papers - which is probably what will happen if they get a letter from the OP saying he wants payment for the pictures they used to highlight the fact that he had been somewhere he possibly shouldn't have....

All I am saying is, if you send an invoice to them, I would bet that they would have your invoice printed in the next edition....:thumbsdown:
 
So what are you going to do m8?

just sit back and let this paper do what the hell they like :bang:

please give us an update :thumbs:
 
LOL... I'm going to drop out of this - I'm clearly not being understood, and my point is being missed totally.

OP: Good luck with the problem.
 
When you send in your invoice do not accuse them of stealing your images - they have not stolen them as they are still in the original place unless you have removed them. What they have done is used them without your permission (depending on the licencing/conditions of the site you submitted them to.) If they had broken into your house and taken your computer or specific images then they could be accused of theft instead of misuse.
 
I think the basic position here is they used your images without consent, so you would be quite within your rights for invoicing them for using your images. Had they requested your permission first as they should of done then we probably wouldnt be having this discussion.

If you invoice them and they dont pay because you should not have been there in the first place... Well thats not their call to make as it aint there property, the fact of matter they used your images, it doesnt matter what the images were of or how you took them.

This is just my opinion but I could be wrong :bonk:
 
I would send the paper an email/letter. Make it clear that you feel the story wasn't accurate and feel it has a negative impact on your good name. Ask that they print an apology that clearly states they used your images without permission and that you did not break in or commit a criminal offence. Tell them that the correction, along with payment of the included invoice will be an end of the matter as far as you're concerned.

WRT the issue of trespass, it's a civil matter not a criminal one - as long as you didn't damage anything you won't get plod knocking at the door.
 
Kerioak said:
When you send in your invoice do not accuse them of stealing your images - they have not stolen them as they are still in the original place unless you have removed them. What they have done is used them without your permission (depending on the licencing/conditions of the site you submitted them to.) If they had broken into your house and taken your computer or specific images then they could be accused of theft instead of misuse.
Click to expand...
I make no apology for stating this.. but that comment is the most ridiculous crock of tripe I have ever read.

So... you make a copy of a mates CD, and while you're at it, you also make a copy of one of his DVD's. According to you, you are not stealing, just mis-using the terms of license... phah, what a total load of rubbish. Of course you are stealing, and I am 100% certain that the music publisher and DVD publisher would concur.

I can't believe you wrote that!:nono:
 
theMusicMan said:
So... you make a copy of a mates CD, and while you're at it, you also make a copy of one of his DVD's. According to you, you are not stealing, just mis-using the terms of license... phah, what a total load of rubbish.
Click to expand...

Not at all. You are not stealing your mates CD or his DVD, you are breaking the terms of the license that came with that CD and DVD! I can't see your point at all :thinking:

In my opinion what Kerioak said is spot on.
 
theMusicMan said:
I make no apology for stating this.. but that comment is the most ridiculous crock of tripe I have ever read.

So... you make a copy of a mates CD, and while you're at it, you also make a copy of one of his DVD's. According to you, you are not stealing, just mis-using the terms of license... phah, what a total load of rubbish. Of course you are stealing, and I am 100% certain that the music publisher and DVD publisher would concur.

I can't believe you wrote that!:nono:
Click to expand...

Heh, someone buys the MPAA/RPAA/BMI bullsh*t - Its not stealing, its breach of agreement.

You don't get arrested for sharing music on the internet, you get sued, a lot. :bang:

*nb* You do get arrested if your doing it for money - different story.
 
I am not disagreeing that you are also breaking the terms of the license agreement, to that there is no doubt. However, it most certainly is also theft, maybe not from your mate, but from the artist, publisher et al and is why we have the PRS in the UK to stop this kind of theft.
 
Guess it depends how you look at it but I think it really comes down to stealing the "use" of the copyrighted material rather than the actual item.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top