 Poster: A snowHead
|
shoogly, I am bit late joining the discussion, but agree with the advice given already. Good idea to get screen prints!
Can't see that they have any defence to a breach of copyright claim. They could say that anything posted online is, by implication, intended to be freely used and copied, but don't think that would stand up.
They would be liable in damages for the loss you have suffered. That would be the loss of the license fee they ought to have paid you for their use of the image. In terms of the legislation you are also entitled to "additional damages" if their breach of copyright has been "flagrant" so claim an additional 100% for that.
If you really want the claim to stack up, find out how much one of the online photo libraries would charge for a licence for use in internet advert and use that amount as your starting point (before adding the 100%). Don't expect a fortune. If you are realistic in what you ask for, you might just get a cheque in response!
Hope this helps. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| espri wrote: |
And, if there wasn't copyright specified in snowHeads, does that mean that it landed in the public domain? |
No, you don't need to specify copyright for it to exist, it just makes things a bit easier if you do.
A photo only becomes public domain if the copyright holder (most commonly the photographer unless taken on commission) chooses to make it so, or if copyright expires after many years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
As a part of the Midlands Co-operative Society Ltd, the company can easily afford to pay for images used, and should be keen to maintain their reputation. Chase them for payment based on an exclusive use image licence, and cost it based on the value of an image for web use as suggested by someone like Getty Images, plus compensation for unauthorised use. To remove it and use a different photo will cost them much more, as web designers will charge for their time as well as having to pay for a licenced or copyright-free image.
If the refuse to pay, see http://www.castus.co.uk/reference/web-site-information-uk-legal-requirements.htm and have them prosecuted for being in breach of the Companies Act, as they have failed to provide the company registration number on their website. 
Forget lawyers - if they don't cough up, go to a small claims court - it will cost them more in staff time to defend themselves than they would be liable for, and they are highly likely to cave in, especially as you have a watertight case. Write to them, explain the problem, present the evidence, and suggest a resolution. It has worked for me in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| flangesax wrote: |
| I do get it... but it is not relevent to the OP |
I was replying to andy and thought that was pretty clear, I did put his name in bold then a comma at the start of my reply. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sideshow_Bob, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shoogly, it appears to be a straightforward case of copyright infringement, unless there is something in how you posted them which means that the users had good reason for thinking that the 'photo was up for grabs. In principle, you can get them to stop using the phot' and pay you damages for the use they have already made, assuming of course that you can prove that you, not just someone who isn't them, are the copright owners. It astonishes me that companies persist in this sort of behaviour when a little effort and a small cheque would enable them to use the photo' legitimately.
In real life, as FTS said, it's the interweb, and it's the law, and what are you going to do about it? Well worth writing to them asking for acknowledgement and a small cheque, but if they dig their heels in, you're stuffed, so far as the law is concerned, unless you're a millionaire with a desire to make the legal profesion rich (you'd end up severely out of pocket even if you won). No doubt there are 'guerilla' tactics you could employ, but they are presumably not without risk to you, and they're unlikely to achieve much. As others have implied, if you put photo's on the web without any anticopying security, you should assume that you've given up your rights in them (even thouh you haven't, legally).
Last edited by After all it is free  on Thu 25-06-09 22:28; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
richmond, [o/t]That's an interesting apostrophe![/o/t]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have put them up with a clear copyright notice. I don't agree that it's to be expected - it's illegal. I would send them an invoice and proceed as ousekjarr suggests.
Getty Images have a team of people whose sole job it is to trawl the internet looking for use of their photos, and they have extracted massive fines from people who've used their pictures illegally.
Virgin were successfully sued for the same thing
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20896643/
I think the threat of the small claims court should do it here though. Good luck and let us know how it goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I think firebug's right. Go for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
The fact that that picture is now posted on here, without a copyright message, means that it is now in the public domain. What ever rights you did have are gone.
My advice - get over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nixmap, you are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
nixmap, i have stated on here and on my flickr site that i own copyright and i only posted the image on here as reference to the opinions and advice that i was seeking.
I reckon you're probably one of those types who think they can just use anything that they find on the web for free and without permission?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
nixmap, I have got over your ignorance of the law being matched by your unjustified over confidence in your ignorance. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Posting it here does not put it in the public domain. It does grant Snowheads a licence to use it, though this isn't anything to get worked up about I think, more a standard thing to prevent snowheads getting into legal bother about screenshots etc. If you were concerned, you could remove it from this thread, and just link to it, to be on the safe side.
Incidentally the Daily Mail used one of my Flickr photos (and credited it) a while ago - I was hopping about this but at the time I had an open licence on it, so they were not doing anything illegal, it was my fault for not marking them properly. Using one that IS marked, like yours, is different.
BTW I know a few people this has happened to so I just checked. They both sent an invoice and a letter, and had it paid. One is a photographer, and used it to open up a dialogue with the picture editor, so it worked out well for her. Another isn't and sent a very stroppy letter invoicing them for the full amount as if charged from Getty (you can work this out from Getty's site as I'm sure you know as a designer) and saying they would waive extra payment of (insert amount here) if it was paid immediately, and got it. Make sure you have screencaps of places that it's been used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Wayne, out of interest how long did that take, and which software did you use ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
i had a recent look at a large ski shop website for a company based in 3V as i wanted a link to post as someone was looking for a local service that they offered....opened their site much to my amazement to find an image shot in my office of a client of mine which is only used on our website had been robbed....i could have pushed it but a friendly phonecall to the shop owner (who i know) had the image removed within about 10 mins...he was very embarressed that a member of his staff had stolen the image
he knows he owes me lots of beer next time we meet 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
So, here we are nearly a day on and a couple of pages of thought... wouldn't it be a good idea if someone (ie the OP) just picked up the phone and spoke to one of these nice people http://www.ski-direct.co.uk/profiles/ - they look easy enough to talk to.
It's possible they have no idea about the source of the pic as it would be just typical of some web developer to grab a pic from anywhere and worry about getting permission later (thing is, they never get around to it). A grown up conversation with Ski Direct is the first thing to do. Tell them about this thread, tell them what you'd like done about it (be realistic, it isn't exactly David Bailey) and keep it real. None of that "I'll drag you through every court in the land" stuff... the pic is worth £20.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
CEM, get paid in beer... way to go.
And, by the way all, if the pic was nicked from this site, it means it was nicked by another snowHead. Come on... who was it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| nixmap wrote: |
The fact that that picture is now posted on here, without a copyright message, means that it is now in the public domain. What ever rights you did have are gone.
|
That is entirely false according to the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
CEM, get paid in beer... way to go.
And, by the way all, if the pic was nicked from this site, it means it was nicked by another snowHead. Come on... who was it? |
Not necessarily. You can see most of the images in the snowmediazone without logging in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alex_heney, So, it was you then. First to blink is often the culprit. How much did you get for it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| alex_heney, So, it was you then. First to blink is often the culprit. How much did you get for it? |
More likley to be you trying to direct attention away from yourself 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alex_heney, I think you're funding Welsh terrorism
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| None of that "I'll drag you through every court in the land" stuff... the pic is worth £20. |
Wow, you're cheap - I'd put it at about 10 times that, given that it has already been selected and used by a company for promotional material. If they want to continue to use it, I'd make it £300 in total, plus a photo credit.
And yes, I've done this before - photos of or by me used for promotional purposes both legally and illegally have now earned the copyright holder (not me...) over £3K in licence fees and compensation. 70% of the income is from chasing down illegal use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
ousekjarr, actually I don't get out of bed for less than £10k.
Like I say, keep it real. Pics of that ilk are free. Any tourist board, any gear manufacturer and indeed some aspiring ski photographers, will give shots away in return for a byline. OK, in this case, they have been naughty and should pay something. Start at £300 but I'd be amazed and impressed if he pulls it off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Makes me wonder how much commercial use has been made of images from my website without my knowing. (See below)
I've had a number of people approach me (and pay me) to use images for book covers and posters and there have been hundreds of personal blog sites around the world (particularly Iran for some reason) which have reproduced images - just as favourite images: sometimes crediting me, sometimes not. Those are fine by me, I just think of it as publicity. But then in my case the photo isn't the primary product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Getty says: £ 885.00 GBP for that use.
I used this as a benchmark which is certainly no better.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/85255741/Iconica
They could have got something similar on istockphoto for a few pounds. But they didn't. It may be a mistake, though it's unlikely to be a developer, in this case. But if it's a mistake, they've been very stupid, not to check the source of the main images on their home page.
Details below.
Image:
85255741 License Details
Use Web - Corporate and promotional site
Size Medium resolution - Up to 300 x 250 pixels
Placement Repeated use
Start date Jun 25, 2009
End date Jun 25, 2010
Territory United Kingdom
Industry Travel / Tourism
Exclusivity No Exclusivity
Contact us for exclusivity
Image number: Collection: Title:
85255741 Iconica Teenage skier jumps above distant mountains
Price: £ 885.00 GBP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Bode Swiller, already contacted them... and they are easy to talk to. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
shoogly, c'mon then, how much? 10, 20, 30... pence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Bode Swiller, I agree, but the freebie shots are given for a reason, and that reason is usually publicity in the form of their resort/product name appearing in the photo, so if a company doesn't want that it has to pay for the privilege.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I would be honoured if someone used one of my ski pics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| shoogly wrote: |
| Bode Swiller, already contacted them... and they are easy to talk to. |
Come on then, share the results....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've had a photo published on an online guide to London, no money just a credit. They later wanted to use another of my photos for a Florence guide but as the London one was so badly researched I declined on that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
| Bode Swiller, I agree, but the freebie shots are given for a reason, and that reason is usually publicity in the form of their resort/product name appearing in the photo, so if a company doesn't want that it has to pay for the privilege. |
picture credits often don't go on the pic itself. Take the example of a magazine cover. Normally the credit is on an inside page in about 6pt... eg Front Cover Picture by John Smith / Aviemore Tourist Board. Most ski action shots and resort shots you see in brochures, websites etc are provided free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
| I would be honoured if someone used one of my ski pics. |
, so would I if they gave me credit for it. I would still be furious if it was used without my permission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
