Two of my images have been stolen

Alastair said:
I summarised my invoice layout in post #33 (you'll need to vary the line item description to suit). I take usage rates from the freelancer guide.


But whatever you do, don't make-up a stupidly high figure (eg. £500) and don't make-up claims that you can't justify ("unauthorised usage fee") or will get you taken for an idiot because the have no relevance ("damages").

And don't engage in moral debate on the phone, by email or letter. Just find out who the invoice needs to go to and send it. Start arguing and you'll lose credibility. If you're credible and professional in your approach you are far more likely to get paid what you want.
Click to expand...

Cheers Alastair,

I sent an email asking for the contact details of the person to who I send the invoice to.
I got an email back from the companies "Digital Strategies Manager" CC'd to someone else in the company, saying that they will investigate how the image found its way onto their webpage and if it was used inappropriately.
In the mean time they want me to prove that I am the copyright holder to the image.

I have saved the emails along with hard copies of the webpage showing image in use.

We shall see what happens from here.
 
I try and avoid sending an email Stuart, it risks getting into that type of pass-the-buck situation and debate. I'd just ring, ask for the accounts address for invoices to be sent to. Send it RMSD.

It is a valid point about proving you're the copyright holder, because otherwise there's a great potential for scams. Provide as much detail as you can about the image, where and when it was taken and the equipment used.
 
The usual acid test for ownership is to still have the RAW file/original image/negative but don't for heavens sake send it to them as proof because then they'll have it too

I'd just state as alistair says above where and when the image was taken and what with, plus that you have the original file
 
whatever duttyd decides upon to charge... wouldn't a judge want to see proof that he has charged a similar fee for similar work in the past? If not.. how is £500 stupidly overpriced? What if he's charged that many times before? On the other hand.... if he has never charged more than say £200 for similar work before then the £500 will be laughed at won't it?
 
Alastair said:
I try and avoid sending an email Stuart, it risks getting into that type of pass-the-buck situation and debate. I'd just ring, ask for the accounts address for invoices to be sent to. Send it RMSD.

It is a valid point about proving you're the copyright holder, because otherwise there's a great potential for scams. Provide as much detail as you can about the image, where and when it was taken and the equipment used.
Click to expand...

With multiple overseas offices I didn't know which one to ring. In the end I called the UK office who didn't have a clue.
That's why I used the 'contact us' online form on their website.
My matter has now been passed to the appropriate person but more importantly, their response gave me a name and a contact point (Head Office in Monaco).

I gave them every piece of info on the image including date and location taken, the two sites where it was posted (also showing my name as copyright holder) and EXIF details from the camera and Flickr.
When looked at as a whole, everything ties up to me being the owner.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
big soft moose said:
The usual acid test for ownership is to still have the RAW file/original image/negative but don't for heavens sake send it to them as proof because then they'll have it too
Click to expand...

Got the RAW file still but certainly won't be sending that! :D
 
leftcurl said:
whatever duttyd decides upon to charge... wouldn't a judge want to see proof that he has charged a similar fee for similar work in the past? If not.. how is £500 stupidly overpriced? What if he's charged that many times before? On the other hand.... if he has never charged more than say £200 for similar work before then the £500 will be laughed at won't it?
Click to expand...

To be honest i don't think the judge will be that bothered by prior sales - the issue is with non payment of the invoice

say for example you usually sell tiles for £5 for ten , and you do that for years, then one day you decide to go upmarket and get some much more expensive stock in and sell them to me for £25 /ten and I take delivery but then don't pay a judge isnt going to say "oh no mr leftcurl you've only ever sold them for £5/ten before so mr moose only need pay 20% of your invoice"

The only issue is whether the invoice is fair , and i'd still contend that its reasonable to levy a higher charge because the use was unauthorised.
 
big soft moose said:
The only issue is whether the invoice is fair , and i'd still contend that its reasonable to levy a higher charge because the use was unauthorised.
Click to expand...

I'll amicably disagree:
  • Only charge what someone might pay, there's no point setting yourself up with a lost cause from the start.
  • Headline rates (eg. the freelancers guide) are the equivilent of a hotel rack rate - last minute desperation prices. For prior use you can expect to discount from the freelance rate. A quick look at the achieved rate of the freelancers website shows just how poor real rates are for authorised usages.
I have no idea what duttytd has put on his invoice and covering communications, but he was mentioning phrases like "damages" earlier in the thread which is a hiding to nothing. I put "unauthorised usage penalties" into the same waste of time box. And if they didn't appear as seperate line items you might as well have written "chancer"/"amateur" in big red letters as a watermark on the page.

My line item for such invoices is a "Retrospective usage license", at full rate. No penalties, no damages. What the infringer has lost is any discretionary discount that might have been negotiated for preauthorised usage.
 
big soft moose said:
To be honest i don't think the judge will be that bothered by prior sales - the issue is with non payment of the invoice

say for example you usually sell tiles for £5 for ten , and you do that for years, then one day you decide to go upmarket and get some much more expensive stock in and sell them to me for £25 /ten and I take delivery but then don't pay a judge isnt going to say "oh no mr leftcurl you've only ever sold them for £5/ten before so mr moose only need pay 20% of your invoice"

The only issue is whether the invoice is fair , and i'd still contend that its reasonable to levy a higher charge because the use was unauthorised.
Click to expand...

A tile is tangible, so the analogy doesn't fit.

That's just not how it works. The judge is always interested in prior sales. A photographer will generally have to prove that he is capable of charging that fee. Even getting it once isn't enough. He has to consistently prove that he charges those kind of rates.

If it worked the way you suggested, there would be no ceiling on pricing.

General (implied) conversation in court will go:

Judge: Mr X, you're charging this lady £500 for unauthorised usage of your images, how did you arrive at this figure.

Mr X: Well, some doods on the net said it was reasonable.

Judge: I see, is this what you generally charge for a photoshoot in similar circumstance, were she to have booked you?

Mr X: Yes.

Judge: OK, can we see some invoices or some proof that you command these fees.

Mr X: No.

Judge: Case dismissed.


Basically, go in too high, and you risk being laughed at. She was never going to pay for the images, so he may as well have asked for a reasonable fee that she's part with just to get rid of him.

The Daily Star stole one of my images and ran it full page in 2010. I sent an invoice for £200, because I knew it would be enough to avoid a court case, and enough for them to feel like they were getting away with it.

When you're a lone individual with limited funds, it's about getting what you can, not what you think it's worth.
 
So, being an ammetuer and not doing anything professional, like a photoshoot for example, I can't charge anything for a ripped image?

I know this si not what you are sayind London, wanted too know?
 
Pegasus2 said:
So, being an ammetuer and not doing anything professional, like a photoshoot for example, I can't charge anything for a ripped image?

I know this si not what you are sayind London, wanted too know?
Click to expand...

its not whats being said, charge reasonably though. If you go in at £3k an image you'll get laughed at (unless you charge that per photo shoot) but invoice a reasonable amount, with a reasonable basis for that then you'll be good
 
I've read this with interest. I am a little confused though as to why the amount of £500 for 2 images used without permission is seen to be way too high.

I've not seen the images in question and haven't seen the dimensions mentioned, sorry if I've missed that somewhere. Going on the Freelance Fees Guide for Online Use for Commercial and Business the smallest of 300x400 would be £110 for 1 month and 600x800 would be £225 for 1 month.
So that's between £220 and £450 for authorised 1 month usage for the 2 images, add to that the time to recover the payments then surely £250 per image is ok is it not?

Perhaps people are not accounting that the sum is for 2 images not 1.

I'm no expert, just an interested amatuer.

Paul.
 
PaulF said:
I've read this with interest. I am a little confused though as to why the amount of £500 for 2 images used without permission is seen to be way too high.
Click to expand...
Because the Freelancer guide prices are generally over-estimates and in some cases wild over-estimates.

If you look at the prices achived you'll see how wide of the mark the achieved web-use prices are.

And, as LHS has pointed out, it's about what you can get. It doesn't count unless the cheque clears, going for silly figures will prejudice that.

For the record, I'd have probably aimed around a maximum of £75 per image for a retrospective license for the unauthorised use and continued web use of the images on the website only. Reserving all other rights including print use in promotional materials as subject to further agreement (this might prompt a come-back for all-rights, then you can increase the figure). I'd play the long game and hope for future income, rather than play it short and burn any and all chances with this artist.

I'd rather have £150 in my account and the prospect of future income from someone that obviously likes my work, than be wasting my time chasing payment for an invoice at £500 that will never arrive.
 
Alastair said:
Because the Freelancer guide prices are generally over-estimates and in some cases wild over-estimates.

If you look at the prices achived you'll see how wide of the mark the achieved web-use prices are.

And, as LHS has pointed out, it's about what you can get. It doesn't count unless the cheque clears, going for silly figures will prejudice that.

For the record, I'd have probably aimed around a maximum of £75 per image for a retrospective license for the unauthorised use and continued web use of the images on the website only. Reserving all other rights including print use in promotional materials as subject to further agreement (this might prompt a come-back for all-rights, then you can increase the figure). I'd play the long game and hope for future income, rather than play it short and burn any and all chances with this artist.

I'd rather have £150 in my account and the prospect of future income from someone that obviously likes my work, than be wasting my time chasing payment for an invoice at £500 that will never arrive.
Click to expand...

Ah, fair enough. I didn't check the freelance guide any further than the link provided earlier in the thread.
Just makes me glad I'm an amatuer at this photography lark :)

Paul.
 
PaulF said:
Ah, fair enough. I didn't check the freelance guide any further than the link provided earlier in the thread.
Just makes me glad I'm an amatuer at this photography lark :)

Paul.
Click to expand...

So am I. Technically.

But that didn't stop me getting a cheque last month when I found (18 months after the fact) that a trade magazine had used one of my images.

"Professional" is an attitude and a state of mind.. .. :thumbs:
 
I thought I would update this thread since I last posted about my experience.

I did all my contact by email which involved the 'Digital Communications Manager', 'Group Marketing Manager' and the companies 'Finance Director'.

The latter two persons were CC'd into the first reply email by the DCM.

Anyway, the situation was explained in a polite and courteous way.
They came back and acknowledged that they had not obtained a license and were sincerely sorry for the oversight.
As a way of apology they offered me 30 Euros plus my name against the photo and a link back to my website.

I politely declined that offer and instead confirmed that my fee would be £220 (taken from Freelance Guide - covering 2 months business and commercial use at a resolution of 300x400 pixel (close to image size used).
I know the freelance guide is way out but it helps create a starting point for any possible negotiation.

They came back and informed that my fee exceeded what they would normally pay CORBIS or their own photographers for such an image.
I responded that my fee would allow unrestricted licensed use of the image from this point onwards. I also took the time to re-iterrate that breach of copyright is a serious offence.

A discussion was had with their Finance Director and this morning I received an email and payment for the requested fee.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well done STUPAR.

For infringement, take the going rate and double it....had they asked, they could have had it/them for the usual fee. By stealing it, they get it doubled...works for me and it stops them stealing MY stuff. Someother poor sod gets done - I can do without these types of customer.
 
stupar said:
A discussion was had with their Finance Director and this morning I received an email and payment for the requested fee.
Click to expand...

Well done, good result :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top