Publishing without permission or credit.

Diving Pete said:
Sorry if I have read this wrong. Unless you specifically said to the model (& have a signed document to prove it) then as far as they are concerned you have waived copyright & so they can do what they like with it.
Click to expand...
It’s the other way round, unless the subject can prove they have permission to publish, no such permission exists.
 
DemiLion said:
[2] I'll let others tell you whether they think my knowledge on media law is sound or not.
Click to expand...

I know who i'd ask out of the whole membership of this forum Mark... and i'd be listening closely, and offering you a percentage of any recoveries if needed.

OP - seriously - Mark may be a little forthright and phrase things quite strongly at times (I personally like that about his demeanour, but i'm a typically straight talking yorkshire bloke and don't mince words myself) - but i'd honestly say he's as close to a guru on this subject as you'll get on here.
 
Contradictory likes above, hence my commenting as well. IMO (as a layman, not an expert) both are at fault - the friend for assuming that as the shots were of him and taken by a mate, he could do what he liked with them and the paper for taking his word for it that he had any necessary permissions. Shame that favours all to often bite us in the ass!!!
 
I thought that "arse" would get picked up by the norty word filter!
 
Phil V said:
It’s the other way round, unless the subject can prove they have permission to publish, no such permission exists.
Click to expand...

Yep thanks Phil.
I understand the correct way this which is why i said:
then as far as they are concerned you have waived copyright & so they can do what they like with it.

however as is always the case the subject usually doesn't understand - until they get educated.
 
Diving Pete said:
Yep thanks Phil.
I understand the correct way this which is why i said:
then as far as they are concerned you have waived copyright & so they can do what they like with it.

however as is always the case the subject usually doesn't understand - until they get educated.
Click to expand...
Agreed - but the subject doesn't 'need' to understand - the newspaper does need to though as it's bread and butter to them.
 
Phil V said:
Agreed - but the subject doesn't 'need' to understand - the newspaper does need to though as it's bread and butter to them.
Click to expand...

First post on here but I felt motivated to say something. As a former newspaper photographer I can say with some confidence that the only papers that have the slightest interest in the origins of a picture supplied to them by someone who's had a story written about them are the nationals who still have picture desks and picture editors. Regional papers, with one or two exceptions, don't give a monkeys because most images are handled and uploaded into their publishing systems by reporters who have little or no knowledge of, or interest in, copyright law. It's just the way it is now. Bread and butter it most certainly isn't, which you can see from the selection of extremely poor 'user generated' images used in most regional and local papers.
 
ElectricPics said:
First post on here but I felt motivated to say something. As a former newspaper photographer I can say with some confidence that the only papers that have the slightest interest in the origins of a picture supplied to them by someone who's had a story written about them are the nationals who still have picture desks and picture editors. Regional papers, with one or two exceptions, don't give a monkeys because most images are handled and uploaded into their publishing systems by reporters who have little or no knowledge of, or interest in, copyright law. It's just the way it is now. Bread and butter it most certainly isn't, which you can see from the selection of extremely poor 'user generated' images used in most regional and local papers.
Click to expand...


Hmm. So how do you explain the email that Toby Granville sent out to all his titles in 2016?
 
DanCanon said:
So we're splitting hairs on this thread? Ok so I didn't tell the newspaper that what I have typed below is the invoice, I told them I am invoicing them and stated below what I was going to invoice them for and how much hence why I left the email open to reply. As for the statement made on flaws on copyright I am referring to the fact that there clearly is no definitive answer amongst those who have commented as there is a number of people giving wrong information according to others. So are these opinions or facts? Your comment was great in regards to copyright but again there are people with different opinions so you may be correct and everyone else is oblivious to the real law BUT that doesn't mean I will take yours as fact when I'm asking for advice upon my own research so no my question hasn't been answered quite clearly, there has been many helpful advisories and tips but the question as to am I ok to question WHY is still evidently not been answered and if it has then its within comments about copyright etc. Rather then saying "yes you are well within your right to question why as it is your picture" the thread has taken a roll to other avenues concentrating on more on what is classed as copyright and what isn't. Am I anymore clearer now or?
Click to expand...
Here is a definitive answer for you.

You have statutory (law made by the government) right as the copyright holder to compensation of breach of your copyright . No contract is required at all. It is the law of the land.

The publisher of the photograph has the purden of proof placed upon him to prove he had permission to publish it.

Send a letter before action if you do not get paid.

If thay don't pay do a money claim online.

It's a simple as that.
 
shapeshifter said:
Here is a definitive answer for you.
Click to expand...

Erm... sort of but not quite.

QV:

You have statutory (law made by the government) right as the copyright holder to compensation of breach of your copyright . No contract is required at all. It is the law of the land.
Click to expand...

You seem to have slightly missed the point.


Dan sent an invoice to the infringer. In order for an invoice to be valid (and therefore enforceable) a contract must exist. Otherwise it is purely speculative.
 
DemiLion said:
Dan sent an invoice to the infringer. In order for an invoice to be valid (and therefore enforceable) a contract must exist. Otherwise it is purely speculative.
Click to expand...

I get that, absolutely. I know nothing about this sort of thing so, out of interest really, is a solicitor's letter or something the right thing to do.
 
Whether it's from a solicitor, collection agency of yourself it needs to be a 'demand for damages' once you get to the recovery stage, not an invoice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top