 Poster: A snowHead
|
Bode Swiller, Exactly - you see the photo, think "Wow, that looks great, where is it?", check the credits with a magnifying glass, and make a mental note to add Aviemore to the potentials list for your next trip (  ). They're not giving it away free - they're doing it in return for a small amount of publicity, and so that they can also use the magazine's name in the promotional material - "As featured in Ski Addicts, June 2009" - otherwise why pay for the photographer to do the shoot in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
Getty says: £ 885.00 GBP for that use.
|
Wot a larf 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
ousekjarr, and how many people bother to go find the picture credit? Would you look at Shoogly's pic and say "oooh, I wonder where that rock is. I'd like to flop off that"
Anyway, I've revised my valuation of the shot. It's now minus £885.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Bode Swiller, Shoogly's pic? No. A shot of a lovely valley full of challenging runs and a scenic alm with gluwein, tirolergrostl and strudel on a rustic table served by a gorgeous woman with come-to-bed eyes, dressed in lederhosen and struggling through waist-deep powder while simultaneously trying to shield her eyes from the bright sunshine? Probably... (shallow? me? )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
ousekjarr, agreed, in that example others might want to know more, but I'll instantly recognise the place because I will undoubtedly have already been there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Yes, I thought I recognised the lederhosen...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
| ...... a gorgeous woman with come-to-bed eyes, dressed in lederhosen ... |
Dressed in something like a dirndl - or are you into cross-dressing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
...but having looked at the link, that's a mighty fine pair of dirndls
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ousekjarr, exactly. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I got in to this situation last year when a company use 9 if my images on their site. It was a competition where visitors could vote on photos, and if the photo they voted for one *they* got a prize. My images were used without my consent, so I sent an invoice to the web development company - it was tricky to find out who owned it. I heard nothing.
Four weeks later I sent a reminder and asked for the registered address of their business. Two days later I had a reply to my letter claiming that as my image was online it was in the public domain and, as it wasn't used in a commercial context, there was nothing I could claim for.
I wrote back telling them that I asn't trying my luck, but would pursue the invoice through the courts.
Three weeks later, at 5.35 on a Friday evening, their solicitor phoned me. It was obvious that the call was being recorded, so I just wasted his time for 45 minutes. I'm sure he was expensive, being a legal beagle for one of London's biggest firms. He reiterated that his client wasn't prepared to pay and would, quite happily, spend £10,000,000 defending themselves in court - the costs would have been huge had they lost.
A week later a cheque arrived ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
| I would be honoured if someone used one of my ski pics. |
Excellent. Got any good powder shots? I'm actually producing a brochure for a tour operator right now and I'd rather not pay for photography. While we're at it, since you seem very generous, can I borrow your car next time I'm in the UK? (I'll give credit for both.)
Hint: The ski company that stole the photo uses it to advertise ski holidays. They earn money from said holidays. Not only are they directly profiting from the photo, but the OP has paid out of his own pocket for the privilege of generating revenue for them. He shouldn't be honoured, he should be pissed the hell off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
| ...but having looked at the link, that's a mighty fine pair of dirndls |
Well lucky me, my office overlooks three cafe and funny enough, dirndls are very popular and out in force right now in Cambridge..
Who would have guessed Austrian influence would be so strong..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Dressed in something like a dirndl - or are you into cross-dressing? |
 I think this whole stolen photo malarkey is a storm in a D cup
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Bode Swiller, Four D cups, in this case. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| shoogly wrote: |
| They've used it over 250 times on their website... i'm going to invoice them for £10 for each usage, which is pretty cheap for stock photography nowadays! |
actually that is quite expensive for stock photography these days. istockphoto will sell you the rights to a photo for as little as a dollar and there are some top notch photos on that site.
Everything is copyright unless it is put in the public domain. You don't have to specify your copyrights. If you are going to sue for damages you have to show that you have sustained a loss. If you are a pro photographer who does photo commissions or stock photography this is quite easy. For Jo Snapper the most you can really expect is for them to remove the photo from their site... and in that case it would seem that invoicing them for use is a good course of action. As someone said, if they lifted it from snowheads you might need to check the snowheads T&C as you have published it here. I suspect you can't just lift stuff from sH but some sites have CC licenses (wikipedia for example) and if you publish there you relinquish some of your rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
My other half had one of his photos used by a tour op - in a brochure and on posters. After a lot of legal threatening, we were given a nice big cheque.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
When Shoogly gets his massive compensation of £0.00 (otherwise known as the square root of jack poo-poo), will he be paying his action model a fee? Oh, surely he got a signed model release form! Oh no...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Ok, i haven't read all of this thread because i got bored but what's the big deal? They've used your picture, so what. Someone must have mentioned it already but if you don't want people using your pics, don't put make them viewable to random strangers. I'd be pretty pleased if a company used one of my photos. Maybe i'd send them an email asking for a little something in return but nothing much, probably wouldn't even bother with that. If you made a living out of your photography and you charged for use of photos then that would be different but you don't so it isn't. It would have been niced to have been asked but is it really doing any harm? No. Get over it. People need to lighten up.
Ballyhoo you need to get more hobbies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
el nombre, good point. Though you miss it entirely. You clearly advocate copyright theft and have no understanding of what copyright is.
Bode Swiller, he's entitled to far more than that. £10 * 250 is out of the question, but I'd be putting an invoice in for £400.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
i think somebody has stolen the author of this thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If your allegation is fair, accurate and true, then:
1. Work out how many times in total your picture has been viewed online and offline.
2. Apply a per-viewing fee to the picture.
3. Multiply the two datapoints.
4. Send them a bill for the total amount.
5. Ring the Daily Mail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
but I'd be putting an invoice in for £400
|
hyweljenkins, little old ladies get mugged and don't get that much compo.
Get real... it was a holiday snap, the owner lost control of his intellectual property, he isn't a pro photographer so didn't lose income, nobody died and the going rate for such a pic is between £0.00 and £0.60. Effectively he left his car unattended, unlocked, engine running and someone drove off with it. Doesn't make theft right but it is his own fault. He should have a grown up chat with the tour operator and see what deal can be arrived at. Otherwise, move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
Ring the Daily Mail
|
Yeah, it'll knock MP's expenses off the front page for sure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
If your allegation is fair, accurate and true, then:
1. Work out how many times in total your picture has been viewed online and offline. not many
2. Apply a per-viewing fee to the picture. £0.00
3. Multiply the two datapoints. =£0.00
4. Send them a bill for the total amount. a net loss of the cost of an envelope and postage
5. Ring the Daily Mail.who will tell you to get a life |
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| hyweljenkins wrote: |
| el nombre, good point. Though you miss it entirely. You clearly advocate copyright theft and have no understanding of what copyright is. |
I never claimed to be a copyright know it all. I have a rough idea of what it is as i'm sure pretty much everyone does. Someone used his photo that he made no attempt to protect, and now he's whining about someone using it and just wants some easy cash out of it. He may as well go and drop some eggs on the floor in the supermarket and then slip over on the mess. He stands a better chance of getting something out of it. I expect to see Shoogly very soon on one of those adverts on minor TV channels claiming he couldn't go to work because of mental anguish due to the unauthorised use of a photo (or not because he seems to have disappeared, maybe to film said advert). Balls to this whole sueing/compensation culture, it's massively crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| When Shoogly gets his massive compensation of £0.00 (otherwise known as the square root of jack poo-poo), will he be paying his action model a fee? Oh, surely he got a signed model release form! Oh no... |
Wotcha on?
| Quote: |
| In summary when in a public place conducting your routine business there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. |
I'm with you about the best solution is to speak to the TO, though (which I think Shoogly has done). Seems to me if they can't come to an agreement on cost/recognition, he should be able to have his pic taken down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles, I was only stirring, however... the skier wasn't an incidental bystander. I'm sure he was directed into action to make the shot. As the shot appears now to be subject of a commercial gain, then the action "model" should also be paid unless he signed a release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Bode Swiller, sort of, but the picture was not sold for commercial gain so the model should really sue the company for his own compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| richmond, [o/t]That's an interesting apostrophe![/o/t] |
Thanks. I've corrected it. I blame the early morning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| 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. |
Publication of copyright works, such as photo's, with or without a copyright notice, does not lead to any loss of rights (in UK, and I believe most other jurisdictions), unless there is an indication that copyright is waived.
| Quote: |
| My advice - get over it. |
Probably good advice, but it's probably worth an e-mail or two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| achilles, I was only stirring, however... the skier wasn't an incidental bystander. I'm sure he was directed into action to make the shot. As the shot appears now to be subject of a commercial gain, then the action "model" should also be paid unless he signed a release. |
In the absence of any agreeement to the contrary, copyright in a photo' belongs to the owner of the film or other medium, presumably Shoogly. The subject, directed or not, has no automatic right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
richmond, what's the point of model release forms then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
richmond, watch out - the apostrophe police are probably still around
anyway Bode - now we know your man-with-menu style is just to protect your own image rights!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
And what about the poor bloke who was edited out of the picture... he should sue for damages - not cool enough to be in the pic, life in tatters, can't get a girl etc.
Shoogly has gone AWOL... do you think he's been nobbled by the Co-op Travel heavies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
In the absence of any agreeement to the contrary, copyright in a photo' belongs to the owner of the film or other medium, presumably Shoogly. The subject, directed or not, has no automatic right.
|
Well according to UK law, this is only the case in a public place.
As a ski piste is owned land and you have to pay admission in the form of a ski pass then surely it is a private area??.... oohhh doean't this then mean you are supposed to seek permission from the owner too??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
Shoogly has gone AWOL... do you think he's been nobbled by the Co-op Travel heavies? |
Must be off on his Caribbean cruise already. After all the advice and predictions, you would think he would educate us on what actually happens in this situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
flangesax, an excellent point. So, tomorrow in the Small Claims Court fighting over 50p, we have assembled assorted Austrian farmers, an amateur action model, an invisible inaction model, an amateur-professional snapper, the owner of snowHeads, David Goldsmith, 35 amateur snowHead lawyers and the directors of Ski-Direct. Marvellous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| david@mediacopy wrote: |
| Wayne, out of interest how long did that take, and which software did you use ? |
about 10mins
mind you I only had a low res copy to work on. A high resolution picture would take longer.
Main thing to remember is that there is nothing on any picture that cant be changed so watermarks dont work.
Getty images do ok as everyone knows they WILL go to court. Most people people wont.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
