I found a couple images of mine in a magazine.. advice pls?

[byronc]

Ill keep it short.

I shot an event, posted some pictures here.. http://www.pbase.com/byronc/golden_palms_foundation_1142006

Yesterday I found a magazine with 4 of my photos from my site^ with the images still tagged with my symbol on the bottom right!!

I absolutely did NOT grant any permission to publish anything..

Can I do anything about this? any advice would be great..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/01dc2/_MG_2708.jpg

[cdifoto]

Send them an itemized bill with "Pay to" instructions. And improve your watermark so it's more than just a symbol. Add your name or website or something. If you had your url on there, it'd be free publicity for you. With just a symbol, no one knows who you are or what it means. And make it bigger. ;)

EDIT: And stop uploading huge originals.

[neil_r]

I know that you will be able to get redress for this and I will leave it to the more legally savvy people here to give you details, however a word of caution. The first image on your PBase gallery is a poster. Unless that is your work you may very well be in breach of their copyright as well.

[condyk]

We get these kind of posts so often and then they follow the same course that maybe a STICKY would be a big help as it could outline options. While there are going to issues about options worldwide those same issues apply each time there is a post. Some of the sticky could outline how to avoid problems in the first palce and some could say what to do if there are problems.

[cdifoto]

The ultimate solution is to do what I do: shoot crap. If no one wants it, it won't get stolen. :D

[goforphoto]

My question is, did you give copies to the foundation event organizers that put this event on? If so then the foundation is as lible as the mag. for their use. If the foundation is a non profit organization and you go after them for copyright violation it could backfire on you and give you a bad name. Getting published is every photographers goal or at least a goal of mine, but if it were me a would chalk it up to "hey did you see my spread in ______ magazine" nobody else knows they ripped you off they just see you as a published artist. Now if those photos were a selling point for the magazine then that is different they are using you shoots for gain, but from the looks of the article layout in your shot it was more of a news type story about the foundation. Keep a copy in the studio and show it off to clients. my motto is "use those who use you".
I know the holy rollers on copyright will turn red over the above comment but Pick your battles, If it was a national magazine such as News week, vogue, People, or some one like that they would respond to a well drafted letter that was polite and professional but if it was a local mag., they most likely don't have the dough anyway.

[studiotime]

hi :)

similiar happened to me about a month ago, and in fact was used as their new weekly flyer for their event! trust me - it sucks (when everyone else is saying "gee, you should be flattered")

i say the same as cdi-ink: eg i make my watermarks straight across my pic now, and sometimes resize to much smaller. but IMO it's the watermark that's key--it 1--allows you to post online the pic at a nice large viewing size, and 2--leaves NOOO chances of someone thinking they can simply get away w/using it w/o your permission or paying you for it.

seriously--i'm still not quite over what happened to me. but at least you'll now be better armed ;)

PS: club events are NOTORIOUS for stealing pics and using them at free will, w/o regard for even the club-goers themselves! i know - i've been shooting now for a few yrs for them.

[rosselliot]

I can completely understand. I'm only 18, and I take a lot of my friends' senior portraits and I take pictures at all of the sports I go to and dances and parties and stuff, mainly because no one else in our school has a $3000 camer set up, so in order for the best I take them. I don't mind them using my pictures from sport games or dances, that's understandable, plus, I've given then written permission to do so. but the senior portraits is what really gets me mad. I right click protect my galleries and I don't let anyone see the originals, but there's still that pesky "prnt scrn" and they apparently do it all of the time! I don't charge much for a sitting fee, because I have the prices on my website set so I make the majority of my money there, but when I see my pictures on Myspace and Facebook and other social online things, it gets me mad, because they didn't pay for them! ugh...

also, I got an event invitation from a band that my cousin often performs with, I went to her last concert and took a ton of pictures FOR HER, well, in the envent invitation, there were 5 pictures - - -and they were MINE...and they didn't say who took them either...no photo credits at all. that really made me mad too...people don't respect the photo profession, everyone thinks photos are just public domain, and think that they're their's just because they happen to be in it.

- RE

[studiotime]

also, I got an event invitation from a band that my cousin often performs with, I went to her last concert and took a ton of pictures FOR HER, well, in the envent invitation, there were 5 pictures - - -and they were MINE...and they didn't say who took them either...no photo credits at all. that really made me mad too...people don't respect the photo profession, everyone thinks photos are just public domain, and think that they're their's just because they happen to be in it.

- RE

oh dear god not the band.....! yea they'll do it to you too. i honestly don't think it's malicious intent per se, but still........do they not know how to read, or something called 'common courtesy'??? especially something like bands - how would they like it if after they performed they got written up in a review, but w/no mention of who they were??? i bet alot of complaining would follow - THAT'S what!

anyway, in terms of the internet itself, "stealing images" is not exactly "criminal" eg taking and using an image for your website like an icon or something.

for myspace, i simply text right across the face. problem solved :)

and for everwhere else, i TEXT TEXT TEXT. right across the entire pic i'll do it. if you'd like, take a look at patrick mcmullan's site.....perfect example (IMO). :)

and if an agency or someone wants me to "show proof they're mine", i'll send them a large size, but w/the word 'proof' across (or something different than what they saw on my site to prove it's me). then, i offer to come and show my book in person. a PITA, but i'd rather this way.

[chakalakasp]

My question is, did you give copies to the foundation event organizers that put this event on? If so then the foundation is as lible as the mag. for their use. If the foundation is a non profit organization and you go after them for copyright violation it could backfire on you and give you a bad name. Getting published is every photographers goal or at least a goal of mine, but if it were me a would chalk it up to "hey did you see my spread in ______ magazine" nobody else knows they ripped you off they just see you as a published artist. Now if those photos were a selling point for the magazine then that is different they are using you shoots for gain, but from the looks of the article layout in your shot it was more of a news type story about the foundation. Keep a copy in the studio and show it off to clients. my motto is "use those who use you".
I know the holy rollers on copyright will turn red over the above comment but Pick your battles, If it was a national magazine such as News week, vogue, People, or some one like that they would respond to a well drafted letter that was polite and professional but if it was a local mag., they most likely don't have the dough anyway.

This is a silly comment. The goal of professinal photographers is not to get published, it's to get paid. When people steal your work, especially print publications, you don't clap your hands with glee that you've been published, you shake your head with consternation and sorrow that people don't value photography. You then feel better knowing that your attorney is about to get you enough of a settlement to buy you a new 500mm /4L IS :). I don't understand how battered one's sense of self worth has to be to feel happy that someone has stolen his or her work.

[chakalakasp]

Ill keep it short.

I shot an event, posted some pictures here.. http://www.pbase.com/byronc/golden_palms_foundation_1142006

Yesterday I found a magazine with 4 of my photos from my site^ with the images still tagged with my symbol on the bottom right!!

I absolutely did NOT grant any permission to publish anything..

Can I do anything about this? any advice would be great..


Hi! Here's what you need to do.

First, open your phone book and call an attorney that specializes in copyright law.

Second, if you haven't already done so, immediately take the infringing images and put them on a CD. Then, make 4x6 prints of each of the images. Then, go to the copyright office online and print out their forms for registering photography, and the continuation form for registering a batch of published works. (Pbase will count as publishing here.) Fill out all the paperwork, then mail the CD and the prints off to the copyright office (along with $45).

Your attorney will likely be able to recover significant money for you, but of course you should listen to his advice, not mine. :)

[goforphoto]

Think about it. Getting published will get you paid. It is all in the marketing, so what a local publication printed you pics and didn't give you a dollar or two, but when you aproach a national mag. and they ask have you been published before at least you can say yes.
If you are not established it is better to get something in print than nothing at all depending on the type of work you are into. When you start worrying about getting a buck for every time you push the shutter you are in for a long hard road. Once you have made a name for yourself ,yeah go after the copyright crooks, but if you are a nobody with a camera whats a little press going to hurt. It has nothing to do with self worth just use it as a tool to market yourself to bigger fish.

[PhotosGuy]

The ultimate solution is to do what I do: shoot crap. If no one wants it, it won't get stolen. http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/smilies/rotfl2.gif The ultimate solution! Except it doesn't work. I've posted 60KB shots with weird crops & borders, & guys still tell me that they've made "GREAT" 8X10"s from them.
So I agree with Ryan, above. (C) a CD & & follow up on it.

[chakalakasp]

Think about it. Getting published will get you paid. It is all in the marketing, so what a local publication printed you pics and didn't give you a dollar or two, but when you aproach a national mag. and they ask have you been published before at least you can say yes.
If you are not established it is better to get something in print than nothing at all depending on the type of work you are into. When you start worrying about getting a buck for every time you push the shutter you are in for a long hard road. Once you have made a name for yourself ,yeah go after the copyright crooks, but if you are a nobody with a camera whats a little press going to hurt. It has nothing to do with self worth just use it as a tool to market yourself to bigger fish.

So, let me ask you, are you saying this from personal experience, or are you just guessing? Because allowing your work to be stolen is NOT the way to impress potential clients.

You're right that there are some situations that are not worth fighting. Most wedding and engagement photographers allow people to put their pictures in the newspaper's announcement section, for example; given how tight the wedding photography market usually is, if they sued all their clients for doing this, they wouldn't have any. However, letting a magazine steal your photos for an editorial story is not, in my mind, something to turn a blind eye to. That magazine is not a resume builder, and nobody is going to look at it and say "golly, who took these snapshots? Call that man and book his photos for our next multinational advertising campaign!" The magazine exists to make money, they used the original poster's photographs to make money for them, and they haven't given anything to the OP for his work. Pretty clear cut case of image theft.

People seem to make excuses for why it's not so bad when people steal their images. I don't know if this is to protect ego or what -- but it's *not* a big plus when people steal your work. It's a big negative, which is why courts will award you big damages when people do it. You can certainly make lemonade from your lemons, but that doesn't mean that you smile and shrug and feel honored that someone would steal your stuff.

[goforphoto]

You are missing the poin tof my original post all together. The mag. most likely got the images from the foundation that it was doing the story on.
What you are saying is sue everyone regardless, what I am saying is, if you took the shots at a charity event then sueing a charity is not really something I would do for the simple reason I have morals which do not include making a buck by sueing a charity foundation because they used a photo or two of mine. The whole point of a charitable organization is to raise money for what ever it is they are raising money for and suing them is just uncool in my book that is why I say "pick your battles".

You would lead me to believe that if an organization like say "Relay For Life" were to use a snap or two without you knowing it you would sue the pants off them for doing so.
In my opinion that is not the way to get my name up in lights may be yours but it isn't mine.
The old saying still holds true, "Carefull who you step on on the way up"

[MJPhotos24]

Picking your battles and being ripped off are two different things. I've let publications use my pics for "free" before, but they always get them from me on my terms (i.e., at least my name next to the photo or at the end of the caption). Very rare have I done this, and only when it's a small magazine or they are trading something off - for example one magazine gave me a free 1/4 ad because the were tight for cash in there first issue. I got the ad, they got a cool photo, all was good. Key thing though, they got the pics from me and didn't steal them.

Now, if you were hired for the event and signed a contract hopefully it didn't have it written that the event could license your pics to a 3rd party. If it did, well you screwed yourself on that one. If it didn't or there was no contract then the magazine should be paying for these, they are making money off sales, so should you. Is the magazine a 3rd party or is it published by the event you shot for? If it is the events magazine and you gave them permission to use your photos then well, again screwed yourself unless it was in terms that said they cant do that.

Lastly, PBASE - why? Don't use a site that allows right clicking to save the images! Those type sites are for ma and pa sharing pics of there grandkids, not photographers. If you do use a site like that then copyright should be directly in the middle and more than just a symbol...for example...
http://mikejanesphotography.exposuremanager.com/p/team_usa_13-14/mcgeecody-usa-1314-3818

[chakalakasp]

Lastly, PBASE - why? Don't use a site that allows right clicking to save the images! Those type sites are for ma and pa sharing pics of there grandkids, not photographers. If you do use a site like that then copyright should be directly in the middle and more than just a symbol...for example...
http://mikejanesphotography.exposuremanager.com/p/team_usa_13-14/mcgeecody-usa-1314-3818

I agree with everything you said previous to this -- but I thought I'd register some input on the usefulness of these types of photo sharing sites. For one thing, if someone wants to steal an image, it doesn't matter much if you've "disabled" right-click or embedded your photo in a Flash file -- the PrintScrn button is a one-stop solution for getting around any of that kind of thing. :) And the self-promotion by disseminating low-resolution images of your work can be usefull. While it's probably a rare thing, I once made a ~$1,500 RM sale to a multinational via an image of mine they found on Flickr. I get the feeling that Flickr is becoming the new Alamy for companies that are looking for interesting images on the cheap. (In my case, the $1,500 was somewhat on the cheap, but not too bad since they only used one element of the photo that won't even be recognisable as having come from my photograph in the final ad. However, I suspect that had they gone to Getty for the same type of photograph, they'd have ended up paying $3K to $5K). Putting images online isn't always terrible, provided that you register the copyrights, watermark the better stuff, don't supply an image online at printable resolution. (I provide images at a maximum of 850px; if I go larger, it's for a reason, and I watermark it in a way that is impossible to remove without spending an enormous amount of time in Photoshop.)

Point is, self-promotion on the internet is a good idea these days, especially if you shoot something extremely interesting that is out of the mainstream.

[S.Horton]

There's a sticky thread about sports photography I found invaluable, an interview.

Perhaps a sticky thread transcribing an interview with a photog/lawyer would be grand.

I'd recc. Carolyn Wright for that -- http://www.photoattorney.com/

[MJPhotos24]

I agree with everything you said previous to this -- but I thought I'd register some input on the usefulness of these types of photo sharing sites. For one thing, if someone wants to steal an image, it doesn't matter much if you've "disabled" right-click or embedded your photo in a Flash file -- the PrintScrn button is a one-stop solution for getting around any of that kind of thing. :) And the self-promotion by disseminating low-resolution images of your work can be usefull. While it's probably a rare thing, I once made a ~$1,500 RM sale to a multinational via an image of mine they found on Flickr. I get the feeling that Flickr is becoming the new Alamy for companies that are looking for interesting images on the cheap. (In my case, the $1,500 was somewhat on the cheap, but not too bad since they only used one element of the photo that won't even be recognisable as having come from my photograph in the final ad. However, I suspect that had they gone to Getty for the same type of photograph, they'd have ended up paying $3K to $5K). Putting images online isn't always terrible, provided that you register the copyrights, watermark the better stuff, don't supply an image online at printable resolution. (I provide images at a maximum of 850px; if I go larger, it's for a reason, and I watermark it in a way that is impossible to remove without spending an enormous amount of time in Photoshop.)

Point is, self-promotion on the internet is a good idea these days, especially if you shoot something extremely interesting that is out of the mainstream.

Well yes, of course promotion on the net is good - but protecting your images is to. If you put it on a site like this, you have to do something to protect them. A little water mark in the bottom corner is not enough, maybe I look at this differently because I shoot pro sports and find autograph hounds stealing my stuff all the time and making costum things like cards. So I try not to risk it as these idiots (not all of them of course) think stealing is just fine. I been ripped off far to many times to count...

PrintScreen is not going to yield anyone a good print, especially when my name or a big (C) is on the players face. If they can right click and save it, they could "try" to take out the watermark with photoshop. IF you're going to use a site like flickr or the 8000 other ones out there, do something to protect your image....what I like about who I use (Exposure Manager) is all I have to do is click and the watermark is put on the photo by them, I dont have to do it in PS and waste time.

[byronc]

Thanks for all the input guys! Ill be calling them tomorrow..

[studiotime]

If you are not established it is better to get something in print than nothing at all depending on the type of work you are into. Once you have made a name for yourself ,yeah go after the copyright crooks, but if you are a nobody with a camera whats a little press going to hurt. It has nothing to do with self worth just use it as a tool to market yourself to bigger fish.

yes, it's called getting exposure in exchange for pay (while being a "nobody" or having no previous professional experience). i agree here, and have been doing it now for a while. and the payoff for me has been wonderful!

thanks for mentioning this to everyone here :D

[studiotime]

The whole point of a charitable organization is to raise money for what ever it is they are raising money for and suing them is just uncool in my book that is why I say "pick your battles".

You would lead me to believe that if an organization like say "Relay For Life" were to use a snap or two without you knowing it you would sue the pants off them for doing so.
In my opinion that is not the way to get my name up in lights may be yours but it isn't mine.
The old saying still holds true, "Carefull who you step on on the way up"

well put, goforphoto:) .

simply put--know what your photos are going to be used for, then, if need be, negotiate further. if no pay is going to be given, then i normally ask simply for proper credit to be given. they get this: i need exposure and professional experience, and they want photos.

the people/group/company or organizations vary. pick what you want, and set forth what you want as well from the very start.

:)

[superdiver]

My only hesitation is that this seems to be a for a local fundraiser. How much bad PR will you get when it gets out that you MADE them pay for your work?

[cdifoto]

My only hesitation is that this seems to be a for a local fundraiser. How much bad PR will you get when it gets out that you MADE them pay for your work?

Being a fundraiser doesn't give them a right to steal. I'd go after a church if they stole my images. Churches are businesses too, as are fundraisers.

[vwpilot]

anyway, in terms of the internet itself, "stealing images" is not exactly "criminal" eg taking and using an image for your website like an icon or something.

Oh my God. Please tell me you're kidding.

It absolutely IS criminal, internet or not. Using someones image IN ANY WAY without permission is criminal and is in violation of copyright law. Its as simple as that.

There are photographers that charge hundreds of dollars for an image to be used on a website, even icons or buttons.

I dont know what you do for a living, but it obviously doesnt sound like you depend on your images to eat or feed your family.

I cant believe that people on here are implying that unauthorized usage in any way is a good thing. Credits do not pay the bills and credits do NOT get you more jobs, regardless of what you think.

The only place I want to see my name printed is on the "Pay to the order of" line.

[vwpilot]

My only hesitation is that this seems to be a for a local fundraiser. How much bad PR will you get when it gets out that you MADE them pay for your work?

This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of this business. Just because something is a "fundraiser" or a "non-profit" or a "charity" does not mean that you should be willing to give your work away.

Many charities and non-profits have people working for them that are making millions.

Ask them at that fundraiser if the place where it was held was donated for free? Ask them if the caterers did it for nothing? Ask them if the waiters and bus boys donated their time for free? Did the magazine give them free advertising in it? Did the people working for the charity donate all their times without taking a cent.

Chances are the answer to all of those is undoubtedly, NO. So why should you give away your stuff for free?

Its one thing to work together with a charity or fundraiser when all are on the same page and you donate your time to do it (which can then be written off come tax time as a donation) and having one steal your images without telling you or giving you any compensation (or receipt for tax time).

The final straw here though, is it wasnt even used BY the charity, it was used by a magazine that is solely there to make money. So you should not be going after the charity, but the magazine that used it without permission.

[superdiver]

That there is the difference. I do it for a few bucks here and there, by no means a living. I look at it as a hobbie...NOT a business...and while I run my business like a business and do quite well, I do give away alot of free service mostly cuz I choose to, but sometimes people just cant pay and its not worth the bad PR to run down and prosecute people who cant pay.

Take it s as a chance to educate the group about the idea of THEFT and then get the good PR out of it....JMHO...

[chakalakasp]

That there is the difference. I do it for a few bucks here and there, by no means a living. I look at it as a hobbie...NOT a business...and while I run my business like a business and do quite well, I do give away alot of free service mostly cuz I choose to, but sometimes people just cant pay and its not worth the bad PR to run down and prosecute people who cant pay.

Take it s as a chance to educate the group about the idea of THEFT and then get the good PR out of it....JMHO...

How does one get bad PR for calling someone to account for stealing his or her photographs? We're not talking about the RIAA here, we're talking about Joe Photographer getting ripped off by the Local Society Rag. And if you're not shooting for the money end of it, why do you care about bad PR, anyways? It's not like you have anything to lose if you're just shooting for fun.

Oh, wait, you're not shooting for fun -- as you said, you're running a business. You're just running your business like it's a hobby. :) Which is fine if you're independently wealthy. You're a dentist, so no doubt the money you make from photography pales in comparison from what you make from fillings. ;) But most photographers don't have that "I don't care if I get paid" attitude -- they can't afford it. And I doubt you could afford it in your line of work, either; while dentists do some incredible charity work sometimes, I doubt you'd be very sympathetic to a wealthy man who came into your office for an appointed root canal (assuming you do those) and then, post-procedure, acted flabbergasted upon discovering that dental work costs money.

[studiotime]

How much bad PR will you get when it gets out that you MADE them pay for your work?

it'll say she's a professional.

:)

[Scott_Quier]

Its one thing to work together with a charity or fundraiser when all are on the same page and you donate your time to do it (which can then be written off come tax time as a donation) and having one steal your images without telling you or giving you any compensation (or receipt for tax time).
Not in Virginia. You may not write off cost of services provided. You can, however write off cost of materials provided. Your time, shooting and processing, are services - at least as far as Virginia is concerned.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer or accountant. This is what I was told by my accountant.

[breal101]

We get these kind of posts so often and then they follow the same course that maybe a STICKY would be a big help as it could outline options. While there are going to issues about options worldwide those same issues apply each time there is a post. Some of the sticky could outline how to avoid problems in the first palce and some could say what to do if there are problems.

I second this thought, every case is different of course but too many times the lack of a contract is the chief culprit. We can't expect everyone we work with to understand the fine points of copyright law. ASMP has always recommended education and negotiation on rights. Many of these things are just a misunderstanding and no harm was intended. My caution is to try to find the facts before yelling thief.

[whitedragon]

also have you thought of a code for your site that disable right click and save plus maybe put them on in a small size at low res

[dfoo]

Disabling right-click is a waste of time. Anyone remotely tech savvy can get around that... and no I'm not talking about print screen either!

[whitedragon]

it was just a thought

[MJPhotos24]

Disabling right-click is a waste of time. Anyone remotely tech savvy can get around that... and no I'm not talking about print screen either!
true, but not everyone is "tech savy"...it's not an end all that's for sure but it don't hurt to have it, maybe even tells people "oh yea, not supposed to take that". It's definately not a BAD thing to have, but it's not going to stop the techies either.

[whitedragon]

nout is going to stop the techies no matter what u do but every day ppl will see that ur work is protected and this may help

[matt1987]

The ultimate solution is to do what I do: shoot crap. If no one wants it, it won't get stolen.

hahah that's hilarious :P

[Andy_T]

You then feel better knowing that your attorney is about to get you enough of a settlement to buy you a new 500mm /4L IS :)

Now I might be neither a legal expert nor a pro photographer, but I consider it rather unlikely that the settlement awarded to you after a lawsuit would be of that magnitude.

I'd rather expect it to be what the company would have had to pay if they had regularly purchased your services based on prices for a 1/2 page for a small local magazine, and that might be closer to the price of a 50/1.4. But hey, I might be totally wrong :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[chakalakasp]

Now I might be neither a legal expert nor a pro photographer, but I consider it rather unlikely that the settlement awarded to you after a lawsuit would be of that magnitude.

I'd rather expect it to be what the company would have had to pay if they had regularly purchased your services based on prices for a 1/2 page for a small local magazine, and that might be closer to the price of a 50/1.4. But hey, I might be totally wrong :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

IIRC, if you register your copyrights and that copyright is violated, you can sue for statutory damages, which can be $750 to $30,000 per image. The settlement will usually be for significantly more than it would have cost per image had they actually bought the licensing outright to begin with.

Again, I am not a lawyer and you should consult one if you need legal advice.

[Andy_T]

You are right :D

Considering the gravity of the situation, they took 6 of your images, let's just assume US$ 20,000 per image, you can get your 1200/5.6 L soon :wink:

Ah, the joys of the US judicial system ... but I won't turn that into a political debate.
I'm just kidding :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[vwpilot]

Even registered, the courts arent going to give you something that is just a ridiculous settlement. Its going to be based on the basic damages that have been done.

Normally, you would probably get the normal usage fee, then as a penalty to the infringer so they arent tempted to do it again, you'd likely get all your court costs reimbursed and then some punitive damage that would be reasonable enough to make them feel it in their pocketbook, but would not be outrageous. The court isnt there to put them out of business to make them learn their lesson, they are there to make sure you get a fair settlement for your time and that they are encouraged not to do it again.

You could certainly come out in good shape, but you arent likely to be retiring unless it was a totally egregious infringement in a very high profile and expensive usage from a big dollar infringer.

[chakalakasp]

Even registered, the courts arent going to give you something that is just a ridiculous settlement. Its going to be based on the basic damages that have been done.

Normally, you would probably get the normal usage fee, then as a penalty to the infringer so they arent tempted to do it again, you'd likely get all your court costs reimbursed and then some punitive damage that would be reasonable enough to make them feel it in their pocketbook, but would not be outrageous. The court isnt there to put them out of business to make them learn their lesson, they are there to make sure you get a fair settlement for your time and that they are encouraged not to do it again.

You could certainly come out in good shape, but you arent likely to be retiring unless it was a totally egregious infringement in a very high profile and expensive usage from a big dollar infringer.

Well, in a small infringement case, I suspect the statutory damages would be on the low end -- $750. But I really don't know, as I'm not a lawyer.

Have you seen the kinds of judgements the RIAA has been getting against the parents of 14 year old music pirates? Same law, same types of court cases.

I agree, I think it's highly unlikely one could retire off of suing a newspaper for running a half dozen of your registered images without a licensing agreement. On the other hand, you could probably settle for enough to buy a new white lens. :) That's only if you've registered, of course. If you haven't then suing for small infractions doesn't make any financial sense.

I think it's pretty rare to run up into this kind of thing. Most companies that use images know they they need to license them. I suspect the newspaper is not at fault in this instance, as they likely got the photos from the charity. The charity likely downloaded the photos from your site and gave it to the newspaper when the newspaper requested photos to go along with the story. I say this because newspapers are generally very savvy about image copyrights and licensing (most papers are chains these days, and most chains have corporate lawyers who provide guidelines for editors), whereas charities are more likely to have the mistaken assumption that because it was their event, they must own some kind of rights the photos you took.

[Strayz]

actually there is a member on these boards that has some exp with somethign similar.

I beleave Mike Jordan has or is dealing with somethign like this. Might send him a PM and see what he has experianced and see what he says other than get them regestered and get leagle advice.

[Andy_T]

It is not black and white, just the shades of grey that mater.

OT: Strayz, I see that you don't use a spell checker on your posts (no real harm in that), but you might review your sig. line.

Back to topic:
I assume you have already done it, but if not - be sure to read also the thread Copyright violation-Selling my pictures without my permission! (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=280425), especially Croasdail's very knowledgeable comments of what you should know upfront before bringing a lawyer to the matter. Other than that, this thread helps a bit to put this occurence here (as unpleasant as it might be) into proportion.

My advice ... pursue it if you think it is worthwile. In this case IMO it might not be.

Best regards,
Andy

[PhotoAttorney]

When I am contacted about a copyright infringement case, the first question is whether the photographer registered the copyright. If not, I suggest that the photographer register it immediately because:

*you can't file a lawsuit until you get the registration form
*the infringer will sometimes ask if it is registered (if you say yes, then the infringer
*sometimes doesn't inquire whether the registration was before the infringement), and
if the photo is infringed again (which is likely), then you are eligible for statutory damages for that case.

When analyzing cases, I am much more likely to take on a case when the copyright is registered timely (before the infringement or within 3 months of publication). But I take some cases when the copyrights have not been timely registered. The money sometimes can be significant.

When your photograph is infringed, you may make a claim for the actual profits earned by the infringer that are the direct result of the infringement. These can be difficult to prove but can be significant depending on the circumstance. For example, one photographer settled for almost $300K for the profits earned by the infringer.

But if your timing for registration is good, you may elect to seek statutory damages instead of actual profits from the infringer. Statutory fees range from $750 to $30,000 per infringement [the range for the statutory fees is what the court believes is necessary to deter the infringer from future infringements], and up to $150,000 with attorney's fees if the infringement was willful or intentional. Usually, statutory fees amount to much more than actual profits.

I sent a client a settlement check for an infringement case recently who had not registered his copyright prior to the infringement. His share was a couple of times his normal licensing fee. While it may not have been a windfall for either of us, it pays the light bill for a few months.

Best,
Carolyn