Photo sold for personal use has found its way onto a national newspaper's website - help please!

Wideload

Wideload

Suspended / Banned
Messages
88
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all,

I sold a few photos including the one in question to a boxer earlier this week.

My copyright and usage paragraph reads as below and was sent to the boxer upon receiving payment;

"Copyright and usage:
By purchasing images from Stuart Ward or Stuart Ward, Photographer; the owner has reproduction rights of their photographs. This allows them to
print, duplicate and copy their images freely for their own personal use, including via personal social networking accounts. Stuart Ward retains
copyright of the images, and therefore has the right to use and/or sell any of these images for competitions, promotional advertising, exhibitions,
editorials, digital and print marketing, publications and websites."

I followed a link on Twitter today to see one of the pics on this page; http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/local-sport/livingston-boxer-martin-taylor-eases-5858811

Could any of you lovely folk offer some advice as what I should be doing and, if the photo was lifted from the boxer's Facebook page, if there is anything I can do about that or any way to address it in my copyright and usage terms?

Thank you in advance

Stu
 
Did you fill out the IPTC fields with all your copyright and payment details or is that all blank?

Ask the boxer if he supplied the paper.. thats the first step.





For futue reference
Change your copyright info.. it might make sense to you but not to a customer.. theres no mention of newspapers or media and the boxer could argue he personally wanted to see it in the paper and gave it for free... he can says its news not advertising... copyright notice doesnt have to look technical... you can add a phrase such as "for clarity you may not supply media such as newspaper magazine books ect" Also if you dont already.. always fill out the copyright , contact and payment details in the iptc fields of every file you hand out..
 
Thank you for the quick reply, in LR under IPTC for the image I only have "Creator: Stuart Ward", Copyrighted (from the drop down) and "Copyright: Stuart Ward"

I have just messaged the boxer to see if he supplied it EDIT, he did. I will take another look at the wording of that paragraph and rejig it to be a bit clearer
 
Last edited:
The way I see it is - you inadvertently gave him the opportunity to do what he has done. I'm no legal expert but your text should include terms like "exclusive" and "solely"

"Copyright and usage:
By purchasing images from Stuart Ward or Stuart Ward, Photographer; the owner has reproduction rights of their photographs. This allows them to
print, duplicate and copy their images freely solely for their own personal use, including via personal social networking accounts. Stuart Ward retains
copyright of the images, and therefore retains the exclusive right to use and/or sell any of these images for competitions, promotional advertising, exhibitions,
editorials, digital and print marketing, publications and websites."
 
I agree with Kipax, there is nothing in your 'copyright and usage' that would reasonably inform a private punter that submitting to the media was a no no

In my IPTC fields I have under 'Instructions'
Media Usage - Non account holders must contact me for fees before use.....ONE use only...Re-Use fees apply. For editorial use only. Additional clearance required for commercial or promotional use. Images may not be altered or modified. No Internet Use, All pictures must be credited to ***************

and under 'Copyright Notice'
Not to be used without prior written permission. No unpaid usage - No Exceptions

and under 'Rights Usage Terms'
No unpaid usage

Obviously you should add all contact details in the relevant fields
 
chuckles said:
The way I see it is - you inadvertently gave him the opportunity to do what he has done. I'm no legal expert but your text should include terms like "exclusive" and "solely"

"This allows them to print, duplicate and copy their images freely solely for their own personal use, including via personal social networking accounts.
Click to expand...


It stll doesnt make enough sense to a customer.... too late when its in the paper not paid for.. make it clear before it gets to the paper... a boxer gives a pic to the paper for a story they are writing... doesnt seem wrong to him.. it says he is allowed to copy it... the rest of the notice says what stuart can do.. its doesn't say the boxer cant do any of those things?
 
Last edited:
Also, people in sports, arts, music, etc. have their photographs taken so they can use them for promotion. It probably seems like a perfectly reasonable use to him.


Steve.
 
KIPAX said:
It stll doesnt make enough sense to a customer.... too late when its in the paper not paid for.. make it clear before it gets to the paper... a boxer gives a pic to the paper for a story they are writing... doesnt seem wrong to him.. it says he is allowed to copy it... the rest of the notice says what stuart can do.. its doesn't say the boxer cant do any of those things?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right... I was trying to say ONLY for social media usage but I've been awake too long!
 
Thanks all very much, sorry to be a bore but taking all your comments into account, is this any clearer (photographer hats off, boxer hats on!)?

"Copyright and usage:
Stuart Ward retains copyright of the images, and therefore retains the exclusive right to use and/or sell any of these images for newspapers,
magazines, websites, competitions, promotional advertising, exhibitions, editorials, digital and print marketing and publications. By
purchasing images from Stuart Ward or Stuart Ward, Photographer; the owner has reproduction rights of their photographs. This allows them to
print, duplicate and copy their images freely solely for their own personal use, including via only personal social networking accounts.

For clarity, you may not supply pictures to the media such as newspapers, magazines, websites, books etc."

I think I will also add "Please do not submit photos to the media, newspapers, magazines, websites etc." into the body of the email, as I don't really think folks are looking any further past the link to their gallery - I'd rather prevent it than cure it.

Finally is there any point in contacting the paper asking to credit?

Thanks again
 
I think this is being looked at the wrong way.The default position( law) is that the publisher has to determine they have obtained the copyright holders permission. If the publisher does not they become liable for any money owed to the copyright holder. If the paper then wants to recover any money claimed by the copyright holder they go to the person who supplied the photo who they did not ask or were misled by.
If it was me , as I have done in the past I would just contact the paper and explain that there has been a misunderstanding by someone and that the paper has published one of your photos.Therefore please could you forward a reproduction fee of £30.
All the talk of wording regarding the usage rights is dancing on a pin head. Unless you gave permision for the photo to be used as it has been then it is a copyright breach. The newspapers know the law but don't care or just blag it all the time.
 
[
Wideload said:
Hello all,

I sold a few photos including the one in question to a boxer earlier this week.

My copyright and usage paragraph reads as below and was sent to the boxer upon receiving payment;

"Copyright and usage:
By purchasing images from Stuart Ward or Stuart Ward, Photographer; the owner has reproduction rights of their photographs. This allows them to
print, duplicate and copy their images freely for their own personal use, including via personal social networking accounts. Stuart Ward retains
copyright of the images, and therefore has the right to use and/or sell any of these images for competitions, promotional advertising, exhibitions,
editorials, digital and print marketing, publications and websites."

I followed a link on Twitter today to see one of the pics on this page; http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/local-sport/livingston-boxer-martin-taylor-eases-5858811

Could any of you lovely folk offer some advice as what I should be doing and, if the photo was lifted from the boxer's Facebook page, if there is anything I can do about that or any way to address it in my copyright and usage terms?

Thank you in advance

Stu
Click to expand...

@shapeshifter I think any picture desk could argue that the boxer had the right to allow them to print the image.

He's paid for it and he has reproduction rights

What we are trying to point out is that Joe Public do not have access to software that will read IPTC data. in fact I bet you could stop the next two dozen folk you meet on your High Street and ask them if they know what IPTC data is and be lucky if anyone knew.

To prevent this happening again the simple words 'Do not supply this image to the media' should be in the email with the digital image.
 
admirable said:
I think any picture desk could argue that the boxer had the right to allow them to print the image.

He's paid for it and he has reproduction rights
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. With wording that vague, any desk would claim that they have been granted usage rights by the boxer.
 
I dont agree. As I say unless proven otherwise the copyright is with the creator.
The law on this does not start from a neutral posistion and then require the creator to make clear his copyright entitlement.He has the entitlement without uttering one word. He can say to anyone who publish his photo "you prove I have given you license publish" and the purden is on them to prove it.He is infringed by default unless the publisher can prove otherwise. As far as the OP is concerned his statement is clear he says "this allows them to" and then lists what they can do quite clearly and it does not state publish,it even uses the term "personal use". It's clear to me.
The only way to find out is for a court to decide.But as in anything like this the individuals personality comes into it.
I have allways issued bills and threaten court action and have always been paid. Once pressure is applied newspapers then realise that their liittle game of brinkmanship is up.But to the OP is it worth the hassle for £30!
 
shapeshifter said:
I dont agree. As I say unless proven otherwise the copyright is with the creator.
The law on this does not start from a neutral posistion and then require the creator to make clear his copyright entitlement.He has the entitlement without uttering one word. He can say to anyone who publish his photo "you prove I have given you license publish" and the purden is on them to prove it.He is infringed by default unless the publisher can prove otherwise. As far as the OP is concerned his statement is clear he says "this allows them to" and then lists what they can do quite clearly and it does not state publish,it even uses the term "personal use". It's clear to me.
The only way to find out is for a court to decide.But as in anything like this the individuals personality comes into it.
I have allways issued bills and threaten court action and have always been paid. Once pressure is applied newspapers then realise that their liittle game of brinkmanship is up.But to the OP is it worth the hassle for £30!
Click to expand...


You have missed the point.. completly :)

We all know he owns the copyright..We are talkign about customers sending to papers.. its TOO LATE explaining what copyright means and how they are not allowed to do that after its appeared in the paper.. we are not disputing he owns the copyright.. we are trying to make it clear to the customer before they make a mistake and give it to a newspaper.. Thus we are saying make it clear in the copyright so they dont do it.. as you say not worth chasing for 30 quid so make it clear there not supposed to send it in the first place..

seriously.. we all know who owns the copyright.. theers nothign for you to disagree with :)
 
Two separate issues here. (1) What should the OP as regards this current usage and (2) how he should go about protecting his copyright in the future. If it were me then I'd probably shrug my shoulders and move on if I'd already been paid by the boxer and concentrate on the second issue. SUMO...!
 
shapeshifter said:
I dont agree. As I say unless proven otherwise the copyright is with the creator.
The law on this does not start from a neutral posistion and then require the creator to make clear his copyright entitlement.He has the entitlement without uttering one word. He can say to anyone who publish his photo "you prove I have given you license publish" and the purden is on them to prove it.He is infringed by default unless the publisher can prove otherwise. As far as the OP is concerned his statement is clear he says "this allows them to" and then lists what they can do quite clearly and it does not state publish,it even uses the term "personal use". It's clear to me.
The only way to find out is for a court to decide.But as in anything like this the individuals personality comes into it.
I have allways issued bills and threaten court action and have always been paid. Once pressure is applied newspapers then realise that their liittle game of brinkmanship is up.But to the OP is it worth the hassle for £30!
Click to expand...


I'm not really bothered whether you agree or not.

The statement in the opening post grants the licencee 'reproduction rights of their photographs'.

Whilst it then goes on to mention various uses, it fails to limit the use and prevent third party usage.
Couple that with the fact that the article reads like a PR release and the newspaper could justifiably argue that the article and accompanying image were
in the boxer's personal interest.

The simple fact is that if you want to mess about with copyright statements - get them right.
You are at more risk having your work used in ways that you didn't envisage with a poorly worded release than you are with none at all.
 
DemiLion said:
I'm not really bothered whether you agree or not.

The statement in the opening post grants the licencee 'reproduction rights of their photographs'.

Whilst it then goes on to mention various uses, it fails to limit the use and prevent third party usage.
Couple that with the fact that the article reads like a PR release and the newspaper could justifiably argue that the article and accompanying image were
in the boxer's personal interest.

The simple fact is that if you want to mess about with copyright statements - get them right.
You are at more risk having your work used in ways that you didn't envisage with a poorly worded release than you are with none at all.
Click to expand...

we agree :)
 
shapeshifter said:
I dont agree. As I say unless proven otherwise the copyright is with the creator.
The law on this does not start from a neutral posistion and then require the creator to make clear his copyright entitlement.He has the entitlement without uttering one word. He can say to anyone who publish his photo "you prove I have given you license publish" and the purden is on them to prove it.He is infringed by default unless the publisher can prove otherwise. As far as the OP is concerned his statement is clear he says "this allows them to" and then lists what they can do quite clearly and it does not state publish,it even uses the term "personal use". It's clear to me.
The only way to find out is for a court to decide.But as in anything like this the individuals personality comes into it.
I have allways issued bills and threaten court action and have always been paid. Once pressure is applied newspapers then realise that their liittle game of brinkmanship is up.But to the OP is it worth the hassle for £30!
Click to expand...
This is 100% correct. Bill the paper. It doesn't matter where they got the picture from its their responsibility to check copyright ownership. Papers will take the chance but they will pay when they get caught. Bill them. It's not too late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top