Photograph Copyright Infringement

Good grief...

first off you gave the picture away for free to an organisation like the BBC so not a lot of sympathy for you now crying about newspapers using it..

But my question is.. how do you know your not getting paid.. it isn't instant.. can take a couple of months from usage to getting paid.. I presume you have all your details in the IPTC? if so then you might be getting paid... just ask the papers nicely.. dont presume you have been ripped off.

All you need to do is contact the papers and ask if they have all the details they need to pay you.. if they dont reply then phone them..
 
Oliver Pohlmann said:
My advice... let it go. I would kick up a fuss if they hadn't referenced your name, but they did. All you're going to do now is waste your own time and energy. Just my 2 cents.

If you can, however, get them to change your name to a back link to your website.
Click to expand...

Not being funny, but what do you think that's going to do? The story has gone from the bbc website, the image is now used in press agencies. At best now it may drive a little traffic to his website for one day, then what? It's not like he'll get commissioned for any work from it, someone will just look and go "oh nice" and move on.

We occasionally find ourselves in a unique situation and if we're lucky we record it and that image has some value, but usually the timespan of value is very limited in news. In editorial then timespan isn't a factor but usually the price is. There's a number of photography magazines now having forums and using images submitted on these to create articles. The amateur photography feels flattered because he's published, the magazine gets content for free. The difference here is they probably wont pay for content and move on to someone who will let them use their images for free.

However for news and that instant requirement for images, if it's unique, then that has a value. I was once fortunate to be in a similar position, negotiated a rate with a picture agency, who I think did very well out of it as the images appeared all over the world. As an amateur I think I did very well from it, but if it hadn't have been for advice on here over the years I wouldn't have got a penny.
 
She was the girl next door, I was 17 and she was 15, it would probably be considered grooming these days. 41 years later and we're still together, I was lucky to meet her, no-one else would have put up with me for so long.
 
jakeblu said:
She was the girl next door, I was 17 and she was 15, it would probably be considered grooming these days. 41 years later and we're still together, I was lucky to meet her, no-one else would have put up with me for so long.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, over in the Love at first sight thread... :D
 
jakeblu said:
She was the girl next door, I was 17 and she was 15, it would probably be considered grooming these days. 41 years later and we're still together, I was lucky to meet her, no-one else would have put up with me for so long.
Click to expand...
Are you feeling okay, Steve?




:D
 
rabuk said:
As there was a charity mentioned in the article who may have benefitted from the publicity, I have decided in the spirit of goodwill to not pursue this possible copyright infringement.
Anyway, I believe the head of the media organisation in question may be a bit strapped for cash at the moment what with the wedding and honeymoon and everything.
Click to expand...

While I applaud your charitable nature, the publication is the one who are benefitting still. Had it been a charity using the image than that's different but the publication is using it to sell their goods.
 
Byker28i said:
Not being funny, but what do you think that's going to do? The story has gone from the bbc website, the image is now used in press agencies. At best now it may drive a little traffic to his website for one day, then what? It's not like he'll get commissioned for any work from it, someone will just look and go "oh nice" and move on.
Click to expand...

The back link is nothing to do with traffic, it's related to SEO. Having a website like the BBC linking to your own portfolio is a massive boost in back link authority and will help improve your page ranking. Back links are the key to SEO.
 
Oliver Pohlmann said:
The back link is nothing to do with traffic, it's related to SEO. Having a website like the BBC linking to your own portfolio is a massive boost in back link authority and will help improve your page ranking. Back links are the key to SEO.
Click to expand...

Does this really work though, especially for an amateur? what positive benefit is that to the OP?
If giving away images to the bbc was so important, why don't all professionals do this?
 
Oliver Pohlmann said:
The back link is nothing to do with traffic, it's related to SEO. Having a website like the BBC linking to your own portfolio is a massive boost in back link authority and will help improve your page ranking. Back links are the key to SEO.
Click to expand...
Having an image 'credited' does not necessarily mean that any 'back link' exists though does it?
 
Oliver Pohlmann said:
The back link is nothing to do with traffic, it's related to SEO. Having a website like the BBC linking to your own portfolio is a massive boost in back link authority and will help improve your page ranking. Back links are the key to SEO.
Click to expand...
What benefit does this have to the OP who doesn't have a website or any business to promote?
 
gramps said:
Having an image 'credited' does not necessarily mean that any 'back link' exists though does it?
Click to expand...

I meant, request that they turn the name credit in to a URL back link if they're not willing to pay for the image.

Phil V said:
What benefit does this have to the OP who doesn't have a website or any business to promote?
Click to expand...

True. I assumed they pinched the photo from his blog or portfolio website.
 
Still no reply from the paper. I've emailed them again suggesting a solution that would be beneficial to all parties concerned, including the charity, so I'll wait. Maybe it's a genuine mistake on their part and they just didn't know how to contact me before they published, but they could have got that information from the BBC easily enough.
 
rabuk said:
Still no reply from the paper. I've emailed them again suggesting a solution that would be beneficial to all parties concerned, including the charity, so I'll wait. Maybe it's a genuine mistake on their part and they just didn't know how to contact me before they published, but they could have got that information from the BBC easily enough.
Click to expand...

Could you post a link to the article where they used your image?
 
rabuk said:
Still no reply from the paper. I've emailed them again suggesting a solution that would be beneficial to all parties concerned, including the charity, so I'll wait. Maybe it's a genuine mistake on their part and they just didn't know how to contact me before they published, but they could have got that information from the BBC easily enough.
Click to expand...

Knowing nothing whatsoever about copyright but I would suggest that a real letter be sent rather than email which can have a habit of being "lost" in the ether! :whistle:
 
rabuk said:
Still no reply from the paper. I've emailed them again suggesting a solution that would be beneficial to all parties concerned, including the charity, so I'll wait. Maybe it's a genuine mistake on their part and they just didn't know how to contact me before they published, but they could have got that information from the BBC easily enough.
Click to expand...


Pick


up


the


phone
 
I was looking forward to a conclusion to this, whatever the outcome.......
 
I would just ring them and explain they have used your image possibly in error?
Look at the time hassle and potential stress to take the legal route? is it worth it?
Think about what out come you would be happy with, then how much effort would you want to put in to get it?
The legal route will just create a bill bigger then the value of the image.
 
Result. After phone calls and a few emails, I managed to get the picture editor to admit that the paper had used the image without seeking my permission, and they have agreed to pay me a reasonable fee for it.

Having no experience in these matters, can anyone recommend what I should do now with the image (stock photo websites etc.) should any other magazine or newspaper wish to use it in the future?
 
KIPAX said:
Good grief...

first off you gave the picture away for free to an organisation like the BBC so not a lot of sympathy for you now crying about newspapers using it..
Click to expand...

So if someone steals a TV and gets caught, they could justify it on the basis that the TV shop had last week given away a similar TV as a prize?
 
KIPAX said:
first off you gave the picture away for free to an organisation like the BBC so not a lot of sympathy for you now crying about newspapers using it..
Click to expand...

Presumably the moral right of authorship allows you make a choice over who can use your work and for what remuneration.
 
rabuk said:
So if someone steals a TV and gets caught, they could justify it on the basis that the TV shop had last week given away a similar TV as a prize?
Click to expand...

As someone interested in photography, is this really the only thread on TP you're drawn to post in?

Also, why is posting the link to the picture in question beyond the realms of possibility?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top