advertisement


Breach of copyright - next step?

You are credited, but one would certainly expect permission to have been asked, especially if they were going to (very badly) airbrush it!

As a matter of interest what are Flickr’s terms and conditions these days, i.e. could that be considered ‘public domain’?
 
Flickr show it as all copyrighted - all rights reserved
If you go into the exif you also have get the usage terms
  • "Usage Terms - This image is the property of Peter Tainsh and protected under UK and International copyright laws. Copying, duplicating, saving as a digital file, printing, publishing in form of media including web, manipulating, transmitting or reproducing without the prior written permission of Peter Tainsh is strictly forbidden and would constitute a breach of copyright."
"
 
I’d contact them and point out that they have used and altered the image without your permission, infringing your copyright. Ask for payment (or where you should send your invoice) or for them to make a donation to charity in lieu... You could email them, but if it’s in an article, you might consider starting in the comments section of the article, or take to Twitter, to the publication or to the journalist. Facebook might work too. Then take to email if their response is not satisfactory. You should be able to find the details of the photo editor and/or the journalist on the paper’s website.
A few minutes on google will provide links to all sorts of stories where this has happened, and how the photogs dealt with it. One picked at random here.
This article might help too.
 
Well I emailed the paper to ask for an explanation and the reply I received was " I was forwarded your email about the Maximum Joy photo - I'm sorry about this, we were sent it by the publicist in a set of images that they said we could pick from." And then gave me his name and email address if I want to take it up with him. They then ask what I would like to happen in the meantime,and should they take it down. It has appeared online only.
I'll ask if the set they received contained more of my images. I assume it was the pr company that altered the image used.
 
As the publisher doesn't the responsibility still sit with them? It is up to them to deal with the Publicist. Any issues should follow the chain of responsibility, surely?
 
I know it’s not about the money, but I’m guessing you’d have received around £5-15 for that image for online use, if it’d been sold through an agency, maybe less.
An apology, an explanation, and the fact that they’ve acknowledged you in the article means there’s little mileage in this. 25 years ago it would have been very different!
 
I would contact the publicist explaining that you are unhappy. I would ask for a CD or somehing as payment. And I would ask to be guest listed for future gigs.
 
eternumviti said:
I'm always rather disappointed that nobody wants to steal my work.:(
Click to expand...

I’ve had a few of my pics appear on dodgy eBay listings, which get removed with a complaint. I have actually had two formal enquiries, one to use a pic of the Royal Cout in Liverpool, and one a pic of my TD-124. I happily gave both freely, though can’t remember what if anything they ended up getting used in!
 
It's very poor for a 'reputable' newspaper, somebody should take a bollocking for that. Write and ask them for your 'usual fee', national paper etc...
 
Last edited:
A friend of mine, who won't mind me saying is a dedicated socialist discovered that the local conservative party had used one of his images without consent or attribution on their election promotional leaflets. He wasn't best pleased.
They ended up paying quite a significant sum to his chosen charity - way more than he'd have got for the use of the image anywhere, but it saved them the embarrassment of being caught stealing!
 
Have asked my sister about this. She runs a PR company and has worked with artists and news organisations.
 
When I used to work in a well known sport I had a few of my images used without my consent, but usually the reason was exactly as above.... images sent by publicist or agency and the end user failing to do the correct checks (which to be honest they shouldn't have to if the agency or publicist is doing their job properly). I just accepted the apology and moved on ... but in one case the magazine in question ended up buying 10 of my other images... sometimes it's best to just accept 'honest' mistakes happen. All in my opinion of course.
 
Only just noticed this thread. I'd recommend writing to the Guardian, pointing out that, not only was your permission to publish not secured, but also that the photo was altered, also without your permission. Clearly someone at the Guardian didn't do their due diligence properly - surprising in these days of enhanced appreciation of the value of image rights:

https://indianexpress.com/article/s...s-landed-messi-his-father-in-trouble-4672399/

OK, you're not Lionel Messi, but what's sauce for the goose, etc. etc. Of course, a lot of folk (including perhaps Guardian writers) believe that anything on the Internet is free for use - and it generally is, provided the use is non-commercial. For example, I have booklets on my website illustrating the principles of the various categories of intellectual property. I use lots of purloined illustrations - but the booklets are free. If I charged for them, I'd need to chase up every publisher for permission. So, if the use is commercial (and clearly it is here) a line has been crossed and permission should have been sought.
 
tones said:
Only just noticed this thread. I'd recommend writing to the Guardian, pointing out that, not only was your permission to publish not secured, but also that the photo was altered, also without your permission. Clearly someone at the Guardian didn't do their due diligence properly - surprising in these days of enhanced appreciation of the value of image rights:
Click to expand...

I think removing the copyright notice is a serious failure, that isn't simply a question of due diligence
 
gavreid said:
I think removing the copyright notice is a serious failure, that isn't simply a question of due diligence
Click to expand...
Agreed - what I meant was that, in cases of due diligence relating to intellectual property of any kind, all i's are to be dotted and all t's crossed. One needs to chase the thing right back to its beginnings to get the whole story. We've had embarrassing cases where the client thought that it had bought the rights to a patent, only to find that the inventor was not an employee and there was no proper assignment of the rights in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top