If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Newspaper Stole Photographs
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
A newspaper wrote an article about me and some friends (and our hobby) and decided that to accompany the bullshit article they needed also to take photos from our website and print them alongside it; even when we said they can't use them.
Basically they contacted me about writing an article on us after they saw our website, and from what the guy said on the phone, i said we didn't want them using our photos since the article was going to be negatively written and we didn't want to help them put out bad press against what we do. (which for the record is explore derelict hospitals, industry, tunnels, churches, cranes etc with a view to only taking photos and not damaging anything) I recorded the phone calls so i have it on record saying they couldn't use our photos, but they went ahead and printed them anyway.
Is there anything we can do about this, or is it not worth bothering?
Basically they contacted me about writing an article on us after they saw our website, and from what the guy said on the phone, i said we didn't want them using our photos since the article was going to be negatively written and we didn't want to help them put out bad press against what we do. (which for the record is explore derelict hospitals, industry, tunnels, churches, cranes etc with a view to only taking photos and not damaging anything) I recorded the phone calls so i have it on record saying they couldn't use our photos, but they went ahead and printed them anyway.
Is there anything we can do about this, or is it not worth bothering?
0
Comments
I'm just wondering if it's worth bothering with really or if it will be one of those things we're there's just no point trying.
Doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. The newspaper have broken copyright laws (assuming you own the copyright to the pictures - i.e. you took them or paid someone to take them). That basically means you've got them up against the wall with their pants down, and can take them to court for compensation. I would say that you find out how much they would normally pay for permission to use such a picture, and double it. And that's how much it will cost them for you not to take them to court. Whether you'll get that much is another story, but I expect they'll try to settle out of court, because they won't have a chance of winning, and won't want to pay you for the picture, plus your legal costs.
I expect Kermit would be able to advise you on the actual process of doing this, and how to word your letters and so on. But if you own the pictures, and they can't prove that you gave them permission to use them, you will be getting some money, in or out of court.
The other thing would be to do with defamation if they presented you unfairly, but that's another story and, I guess, harder to deal with absolutely.
Regarding the unauthorised use of the photographs, you do have a very strong case- the only defence is that they reasonably believed they could use the photos legally, and a telephone call from you telling them they can't disproves that. You should take legal advice from a specialist solicitor regarding a settlement, really. I don't know if its worth going after them, and a specialist solicitor will be able to help you decide.
Nah ah, you can get in big trouble for taking peoples pics off the internet without permission - it's copyright theft - just as if you stole someone's 'hard' prints. Unless of course they are openly public domain i.e on a website where someone has posted them for public use.
The CABs advice guide clarifys in this section.
In the case of the MySpace image, whatever you put on there you're pretty much 'giving' to MySpace when you join (unless that's been changed very recently - I don't think it has) so the paper probably got permission from them rather than the individual.
ETA: MySpace has changed it's Terms & conditions, so it doesn't have the right to distribute users photos outside of MySpace services - it just has "a limited license to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Content solely on and through the MySpace Services." I guess papers will often risk taking photos from the internet with the assumption that they're unlikely to get done for it if people are unaware of the law. It's also whether anyone is going to bother chasing them for it. Soem papers even predict are certain amount of court cases per year where they've put public interest before the law.
but they used it anyway so youre entitled to compensation which should be more than £12
£12. Hahahahaha, what a load of bollocks. We're talking professional photographer rates for a front page story here. That's the sort of figure you should be looking at, then consider the fact that they won't want to pay your legal fees on top of that, so you'll be able to demand more than that. Trust me, you've got them bent over with their trousers round thier ankles. And they know that. All they'll try to do now is limit the amount of money they have to pay you. It's just a case of you doing a bit of research, and finding out the going rate for something (get a copy of the newspaper, look at a photographer credit on the front page, try and track down that person, and ask for some "careers advice" specifically on the amount you can earn).
The person who took the photo, paid or unpaid retains copyright.
You put it on the website and thus in the public domain however in terms of copyright it's a bit of a grey area. Technically even if it's a breach of copyright their lawyers have evaluated the chance of a libel and copyright suit. Obviously they've allowed it proving you've not much clout.