Long shot - Anyone know any copyright specialist lawyers in Glasgow?

cwinhall

cwinhall

Suspended / Banned
Messages
571
Name
Colin
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got a situation that's going to need to go to court, I've tried everything to settle it without going to this measure but the guy is pathetic and stubborn.

So my question is if anyone knows of a copyright lawyer in Glasgow that I could go to with this case?

Colin.
 
mattyh said:
For a solicitor??? No chance :D

Can you tell us anything about the case? or not?
Click to expand...

Yep I can. It's a long story (although I can make it a very short one).

The short version:

I worked for Loch Lomond Seaplanes as a "Dock Hand". I took photos in my spare time. He used 2 of my photos in an international magazine "Flight International" without asking me, telling me, or paying me. I found it out myself one day when i saw a copy of the magazine.

He claims to own the copyright becuase I worked for him at the time of taking the photos.

There is ALOT more to it than just this, this is just the basic thing I will be taking to him to court for.
 
cwinhall said:
Yep I can. It's a long story (although I can make it a very short one).

The short version:

I worked for Loch Lomond Seaplanes as a "Dock Hand". I took photos in my spare time. He used 2 of my photos in an international magazine "Flight International" without asking me, telling me, or paying me. I found it out myself one day when i saw a copy of the magazine.

He claims to own the copyright becuase I worked for him at the time of taking the photos.

There is ALOT more to it than just this, this is just the basic thing I will be taking to him to court for.
Click to expand...


check your contract. some contrcacts will have various clauses in them that effectively mean that anything you discover, invent etc whist employed or engaged by them automatically means that any IP or copyright goes to them, irrespective of wether it s related to your work for them or not. I had a huge barny with an agency over this recently and it want until I pointed out what the clauses actually meant (i.e. the company I was working for would automatically get the IP for anything I did in my own time) that they budged on them

I have seen these clasues in many agency contracts over the past year and a bit. Whilst they may be waaaaaaaaaaaaaay OTT if you have signed the contract then there may be little you can do. So before pursuing the copyright route check out the contract you signed first.
 
pingu said:
check your contract. some contrcacts will have various clauses in them that effectively mean that anything you discover, invent etc whist employed or engaged by them automatically means that any IP or copyright goes to them, irrespective of wether it s related to your work for them or not. I had a huge barny with an agency over this recently and it want until I pointed out what the clauses actually meant (i.e. the company I was working for would automatically get the IP for anything I did in my own time) that they budged on them

I have seen these clasues in many agency contracts over the past year and a bit. Whilst they may be waaaaaaaaaaaaaay OTT if you have signed the contract then there may be little you can do. So before pursuing the copyright route check out the contract you signed first.
Click to expand...

There was no written contract with them. I am registered self employed. The invoices they have for my pay will state that I was working under the title "Dock Hand".
 
It sounds like more of a contract issue than a copyright one based on his argument that you were under his employ at the time the photo was taken. This might be a good angle for you if you can prove you were not on the clock when the photos were taken (exif data and worksheets to back it up) then he's on a loser.

Are you on the small claims track?
 
Didnt you post one of the shots on here? Taken with a 600 f/4? Or was that someone else?

The question of how did he come by the digital negatives come to mind?
 
pxl8 said:
It sounds like more of a contract issue than a copyright one based on his argument that you were under his employ at the time the photo was taken. This might be a good angle for you if you can prove you were not on the clock when the photos were taken (exif data and worksheets to back it up) then he's on a loser.

Are you on the small claims track?
Click to expand...

Yep small claims most likely, unless I can find a solicitor who will intimidate him enough to settle out of court.

King_Boru said:
Didnt you post one of the shots on here? Taken with a 600 f/4? Or was that someone else?

The question of how did he come by the digital negatives come to mind?
Click to expand...

Yes thats one of the photos he used.

He got the images from a CD i gave him with the understanding that he would pay me for the use of them. This was explicitly stated.
 
cwinhall said:
He got the images from a CD i gave him with the understanding that he would pay me for the use of them. This was explicitly stated.
Click to expand...

Sorry to be a pain but when you say stated was it verbally or in writing? I only ask because verbal statements are difficult to uphold in court as I have experienced it first hand.
 
King_Boru said:
Sorry to be a pain but when you say stated was it verbally or in writing? I only ask because verbal statements are difficult to uphold in court as I have experienced it first hand.
Click to expand...
Verbally, it's not like I would be giving him the images for free in the first place though...:shrug:
 
The small claims track could also work in your favour. If his defence is entered as you said above and you include evidence that you are self-employed and were shooting on your own time the judge will most likely rule in your favour. As I said I don't see this case about copyright as such. The other party is claiming ownership because you were working for him (but has no contract to back up that claim) so you simply have to show you were there on your own time and it's game over.
 
mattyh said:
Sounds like a nightmare... although it's quite clear to me that unless he was employing you as a photographer, then he doesn't own the copyright... which I'm sure you already know :D

Go for the jugular :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I think that's pretty inaccurate. Anything you produce during time where the employer is paying you to work for them is technically theirs regardless of what your official job title is. If you were taking pictures as a hobby then you should have been doing it outside of working hours. Personally I don't think you're going to have much luck with this.

cwinhall said:
Verbally, it's not like I would be giving him the images for free in the first place though...:shrug:
Click to expand...

Why would you be getting paid extra for images taken during working hours? This makes no sense to me. One thing you do have going for you is that verbal agreements are legally binding under Scottish Law, however it's almost impossible to enforce without witnesses. I think you're going to learn a lot of valuable lessons from this, which is a good thing.
 
KayJay said:
I think that's pretty inaccurate. Anything you produce during time where the employer is paying you to work for them is technically theirs regardless of what your official job title is. If you were taking pictures as a hobby then you should have been doing it outside of working hours. Personally I don't think you're going to have much luck with this.



Why would you be getting paid extra for images taken during working hours? This makes no sense to me. One thing you do have going for you is that verbal agreements are legally binding under Scottish Law, however it's almost impossible to enforce without witnesses. I think you're going to learn a lot of valuable lessons from this, which is a good thing.
Click to expand...

I'd actually say a lot depends on your contract. My company contract says nothing in it about any form of right to any material I produce. I am also salaried, with an average working week, but I am expected to work enough hours to complete the job. Does that therefore mean I am under a 24 hour contract with my company, and therefore anything I produce whilst under my time there, belongs to the company? :shrug:

Intellectual property is a very confusing area, If the OP was taking photos in his lunch hour, for example... he is not getting paid during that time, so isn't "at work" so therefore isn't under contract to the company at that time...
 
mattyh said:
I'd actually say a lot depends on your contract. My company contract says nothing in it about any form of right to any material I produce. I am also salaried, with an average working week, but I am expected to work enough hours to complete the job. Does that therefore mean I am under a 24 hour contract with my company, and therefore anything I produce whilst under my time there, belongs to the company? :shrug:

Intellectual property is a very confusing area, If the OP was taking photos in his lunch hour, for example... he is not getting paid during that time, so isn't "at work" so therefore isn't under contract to the company at that time...
Click to expand...

Does your contract not specify core hours? Most contracts where the employee is on a salary state core hours where the employee must be present in the work place. :thinking:

Also I took into account lunch breaks by specifically saying "working hours" of which a lunch break isn't one :razz:

It is confusing and matters aren't helped much by there being so much confusion around the area. If he's got a contract :rules: then he better read it and pass it onto his solicitor, if he's not then it's going to be a case of "his word against mine". :bat:

I'd be interested to know the outcome of this though. :gag:

Lol. emoticons.
 
KayJay said:
I think that's pretty inaccurate. Anything you produce during time where the employer is paying you to work for them is technically theirs regardless of what your official job title is. If you were taking pictures as a hobby then you should have been doing it outside of working hours. Personally I don't think you're going to have much luck with this.



Why would you be getting paid extra for images taken during working hours? This makes no sense to me. One thing you do have going for you is that verbal agreements are legally binding under Scottish Law, however it's almost impossible to enforce without witnesses. I think you're going to learn a lot of valuable lessons from this, which is a good thing.
Click to expand...

This is like saying that a secretary who does a doodle on a piece of paper, that she ends up selling as "art" actually is the property of the company she was working for when she drew it. That's ludicrous.

The copyright always remains with the photographer, unless explicitly signed away.


another breach is a breach of my moral right, specifically my integrity right where my work has been treated in a way that has adversely affected my reputation. This has been done in two ways by him:

1) I was not credited for the work published in the magazine, therefore anyone seeing the image in the magazine with a possible job offer or to purchase that image has been denied by the fact that he has claimed the copyright and credit.
2) he has claimed copyright as their own and in some instances the image has been altered or added to without my consent, this can be likened to drawing on a finished painting.
 
Well we'll see. Have you had any legal advice yet? I really think you need to get some because without it you're looking at a shipment of fail to say the least. Trying to discuss this with some accuracy is going to continue to be very difficult since we only have your side of the story and no access to the contract (if there was one). If there was no contract then I think it's going to be like a penalty shootout.

Also you're reasoning doesn't hold any weight. If I program a bit of software for my employer and they use it in a different way or modify it what chance do I have if I applied your reasoning to that situation. They can do anything they want to that code and I can't do anything about it. I don't have to be credited for the work, though it would be nice and is usually done out of courtesy, but is it a legal requirement? I don't know to be honest.
 
Copyright for computer programs is a completely different matter altogether and has VERY different laws guiding it.

I have saught legal advice from CAB (Citizens Advice Bureau) and of a specialist copyright lawyer, who will take on the case on a no win no fee basis.

I do understand where your coming from, and I would like to explore every possible outcome, what he might use against me if it goes to court, but I like to believe in the justice system and that he is obviously in the wrong.

Another point to make is that he had offered me £1000 for the images verbally (and I also have proof in writing) if I give him the images and copyright. Now why would a guy offer me £1000 for photos that he believes already belong to him?

His logic doesnt add up.

I understand also that I have only given a snippet of infomation and there is a huge chunk of info that fills in the lines but I don't want to post up my whole life history with this company on the internet.
 
The fact that he offered money for the images is a good point to emphasize. I also think it's a good thing that you don't post up too much information because that could cause issues further down the line.

Either way I wish you the best of luck and I'd rather see you win than this dude. Do you still have the originals by the way? The exif information and the lack of contract (?) would work in your favour.
 
cwinhall said:
He claims to own the copyright becuase I worked for him at the time of taking the photos.
Click to expand...

cwinhall said:
There was no written contract with them. I am registered self employed. The invoices they have for my pay will state that I was working under the title "Dock Hand".
Click to expand...

If you are registered self employed then you are not employed by him so any work you do is chargeable including the photography, if you'd issued an invoice for dock hand £XXX photography £XXX then fair enough but if you're self employed you're not employed by him at all

That's the way I read it anyway :shrug:
 
cwinhall said:
This is like saying that a secretary who does a doodle on a piece of paper, that she ends up selling as "art" actually is the property of the company she was working for when she drew it. That's ludicrous.
Click to expand...


depending on the contract it could easily be the case.

i think the wording in the contract I disputed was something like

perpetual and irrevocable right to IP and or copyright from any inventions, discoveries or other material produced or found during the period the contrct is in force.

had I signed it I would have been agreeing to that no matter how silly it was. If you sign it then tough, you have agreed to the Ts and Cs


so, get a contract, get it in writing and read it before signing.


really hope you win this one and that he has offered money is well in your favour. but if the offer isnt in writing or wasnt witnessed then again it probably wont mean much.
 
Post #21 - Where did you find the no win, no fee lawyer?
 
I'm with Wack on this one. Self-employed is not employed. If we carry out works as employed we get an hourly/monthly rate for set hours with a P60 and PAYE/NIC deductions. Being self-employed is totally different. We can agree a day rate or most commonly we charge price work. Any additional work we do or that is nessary is charged extra by us. Being self-employed is a business not a charity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top