Possible theft of images

[IMARLOW]

I recently posted a story on this group "Still not worth 30k"
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=517638

I sold four of the images from this fire to the Evening Standard, and contacted the local press Ilford Recorder, asking if they might be interested in using any of this material and to contact me if they were.

Tonight my better half brought home a copy of the local rag, and lo and behold some 4 pages have been dedicated to this story, with numerous images adorning the front page and several other pages throughout.
It became apparent to me that several images (3 in total) looked identical to mine. After looking at them is some detail i am 99% sure 2 are mine and one definately is.
I remember whilst at the scene of this job looking for other photogs, none were to be seen, so i know one particular image someone would have to be stood right next to me to get anything like a similar image.
The newspaper has credited the images to two people one being their in house photog, the other is unknown to me.
So the question is what do i do about this?
I have so far emailed the editor making clear that i have very strong suspicions that images have been used, without my permission and have asked that he contacts me as a matter of some urgency to discuss the matter.
I have also indicated that i have recorded onto DVD all 290 images taken in RAW format from the incident and will be using those files to do any detailed comparison of the published material.

So has this happened to any one else, and how did you resolve the matter.
It really annoys me that this is such a blatant act, and a fairly large regional news paper is profiting from my work.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[bildeb0rg]

I would get the images registered for copyright immediately, then send an invoice via registered letter to the ed, and request a meeting in order to discuss how this happened.
When this fails, get your solicitor to send a letter informing them of your intention to pusue this matter through thrugh the courts.
Keep us informed...

[Lunajen]

Ditto on the info...get them sent in as soon as possible.
And keep us informed.

[ChrisRabior]

First, you need to be 100% certain that the images being used are yours. Take a picture of the images in print, or scan them in, and do a layer overlay w/ varied opacity to make absolute certain that they're yours. IF they're not yours and another shooter was in fact on the scene, you'll look awful silly for claiming they were yours.

On the other hand, if you verify that they're yours, REGISTER ASAP.

And the third instance..
Because you contacted them, sent them images, etc.. they may have taken your initial contact as the go ahead to print them, with an understanding that you'd get paid their typical rate. Misunderstanding.. ok, total ignorance on their part, but it's possible. Your check might already be in the works.

If you don't have luck with the editor, put a call into the photo editor, and just don't let up. Sooner or later you'll get someone. Just remember to be civil.. you don't want to turn a simple misunderstanding into anything unpleasant, unless of course it proves to be a malicious act.

[jbimages]

I sold four of the images from this fire to the Evening Standard, ....



Could you elaborate on this. Did you sell the images outright or licence them for one time editorial use?

If you licensed them, did you use your licence terms or theirs?

John

[tim]

Newspapers often put images supplied into an image database, unless your license specifies what they can do with them this might be a learning experience for you. Did you agree to their standard terms and conditions? They might have a clause in there that lets them do what they like.

[IMARLOW]

Many thanks fo rthe replies tp date.

I have indeed checked double checked and done everything i can to ensure that the images published by the local paper are indeed mine. They are.
I will be speaking to the Evening Standard later this morning just to establish what thy have or haven't done with the images after i passed them onto them.

As for the local paper, my only contact with them clearly stated that i had images, should they be interested they should contact me, so i am more than confident that permission to use them was NOT given or indeed implied.
For once i managed to keep the original email i sent them.

Thanks again for the replies they have been very helpful.

[ChrisRabior]

Gmail does all that for me. Haven't deleted an email in like 3 years.. and it's all easily searched and indexed.. and it's not local, so no real worries.

Good luck getting it all sorted out. Regardless of what went down, look on the bright side.. your images got put to print, and you'll have some money coming your way, one way or another.

[amfoto1]

I see you are in England and really don't know if there are big differences between how the newspapers there handle stories and photos, as compared to here in the U.S.

If this happened here, this is what I would suspect...

There are wire services between newspapers... Via these it's possible the paper that bought and used your images put them on the wire and resold them to other newspapers. That would have totally circumvented your contact with the local newspaper, and they still might have ended up using them.

The question then would be if your license to the newspaper that did buy them allowed them to put the images on the wire. Often their contracts with stringers will specify they are allowed to do so. It's something to watch out for if you want to control your images.

Another possibility is that the newspapers are owned by the same parent company. This is increasingly true, as a lot of the newspaper industry has consolidated in recent years under a few major players. Here in the San Francisco Bay and immediately surrounding area, I think 12 out of 14 of our local daily newspapers are, in fact, owned by one company (Media News). Only two remain under separate ownership. In a case of multiple newspaper ownership, sign a stringer contract with any of them and you just might find it stipulates that iwhen you sell to one, your sell to all the papers under that umbrella. Again, it's something to watch out for and negotiate, if it's a concern.

If those newspapers have websites, I'd be looking on those, too. A Google news search might find other newspapers or other media also using your images online, if they did in fact go out on the wire service.

[IMARLOW]

An update.
I spoke to the editor concerned this morning.
Who frankly failed the attitude test very quickly.
He stated he had been given full resolution images by the fire brigade for free use.
So off to town on this person i went.
I invited him to display his originals so that they could be compared to mine, printing out no one has been given full size copies of them.
In fat i had the disc for the fire service in my hand ready to go.
His story then changed a little, but basically deny some f the images were mine and had been taken by staff photogs.
Despite my increasing levels of lividness i kept cool and shot down each of his excuses.
It transpires that what actually happened was images were taken from my website and printed by the paper.
They admit to using three images and not crediting them.

Being extremely peeved at this i offered to put the matter to rest by.
Charging for each image and asking for them to be re printed with the proper credit.
The only reason for asking for a reprint was because one particular image is attracting a lot of interest so i don't see why a staffer should get credit for something they haven't done.
This isnt so much an issue of money but the principle that my work have been touted as the work of others. And of course in effect stolen in the first place.
The Editor has backtracked somewhat stating that they will pay, but will add one of those pieces correcting the credit issue, having seen these before i am not happy to accept this as it will not have the same effect as having the images published with the correct credit.

I have politely but firmly declined this offer and stated exactly why and my reasoning for doing so.
The reply so far is that is in their opinion "adequate" and is their final say on the matter.

I am totally fuming about this, and fee. it is worth slapping a County Court Claim on them.
No doubt i will calm down at some stage today and work out how best to deal with this now.

[SBCmetroguy]

I hope you took the advice to register your images. Now is definitely the time to do so, because this could get ugly very fast and you want to be covered in every way possible.

You have every right to be upset. I have fought two local media companies over theft of my images. In both cases the fight was won by me very quickly and without it turning into a legal fight. In one of those cases I did, in fact, have the magazine reprint my image the next month giving me proper credit. They were very happy to do so. As in your case it wasn't about money to me, but principle.

[michillebaker]

What is up with some newspapers these days thinking that it is ok to print images that they did not take and not only take them without permission but credit their own photographer for taking them. Sorry that this has happened to you and If i were you and they did not meet your demands I would sue them. Hope everything turns out.

[poppakelly]

how do you register your images - complete novice at this so would like help

[amfoto1]

Newspapers in England are quite a bit more "free wheeling" than they are in the U.S. At least many of them have been, for the past couple decades.

It's been a few years since I was last there, but it looked to me like a lot of your dailies were little more than what we call gossip tabloids here. But, I guess it all works out even, because here TV news is sensationalistic, while there you have the BBC.

Right now, at established daily papers here in the U.S. it would be pretty unlikely for this to happen. It might happen at some of the weeklies. And, U.S. newspapers are changing, getting down off their ethical high horses and playing in the mud more.

We'll also probably see more of this sort of thing as the Internet generation comes of age and goes off to work. They don't quite grasp the ideas of intellectual property and copyright.

OP,

Here in the U.S. you would almost never get a complete rerun of the image in a daily paper. It would be extremely unusual for them to do what you have asked. They'd agree to publishing a correction about the photo credit, as you have been offered, but that's about all. One reason is they'd put it off to an error, or blame an individual, never admitting any deliberate, company wrong doing that might open them up to an easy lawsuit. They also wouldn't want to allocate that much space to a correction.

[amfoto1]

how do you register your images - complete novice at this so would like help

It varies from country to country, I'm sure.

In the US, go to the US Copyright office website for info and download a PDF of form VA, which includes the instructions.

Or, go to Amazon.com and buy a copy of "Business and Legal Forms for Photographers", co-published by the ASMP. It includes instructions an a copy of the form. Just be sure to check the US Copyright office's website to confirm the correct, current latest filing fee.

[IMARLOW]

Thanks for the replies.
I have to say i was wondering whether or not i was overstepping a bit, but at the end of the day i am the the one they thought they could take advantage of.
I'm sticking to my guns on this one.

[poppakelly]

by 'registering' does it mean simply putting a watermatk on the image or is it more than that?

[SBCmetroguy]

by 'registering' does it mean simply putting a watermatk on the image or is it more than that?

No, to register a copyright you have to send your images to the US Copyright Department (in the United States) or whatever your area's Copryright entity is, along with a fee. I believe in the US I recall it to be about $40 per CD of images but I've been reading here on POTN recently they currently have a Beta release out of an online copyright registration process.

Edit: I see you already received the correct response before you posted this question. There's nothing more I can say to help... it's all been said.

[SBCmetroguy]

Here in the U.S. you would almost never get a complete rerun of the image in a daily paper. It would be extremely unusual for them to do what you have asked. They'd agree to publishing a correction about the photo credit, as you have been offered, but that's about all. One reason is they'd put it off to an error, or blame an individual, never admitting any deliberate, company wrong doing that might open them up to an easy lawsuit. They also wouldn't want to allocate that much space to a correction.

I completely agree with you, but this is the whole reason they should. Obviously they won't, but it would seem that they might consider his demand in order to avoid going to court. Who knows... but I am very curious as to how this turns out. I don't subscribe to many threads, but this is one I am watching closely.

[bildeb0rg]

Everything you need to know is here.
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright
This is the bit you need to put on your website..."All Images here, whether they carry a copyright symbol or not, are registered with the UK Copyright Service."
This was enough for Rugby World to get in touch first, even after they were assured it was ok to download some pics by a senior member of the club I shoot for.

[Box Brownie]

Everything you need to know is here.
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright
This is the bit you need to put on your website..."All Images here, whether they carry a copyright symbol or not, are registered with the UK Copyright Service."
This was enough for Rugby World to get in touch first, even after they were assured it was ok to download some pics by a senior member of the club I shoot for.


Firstly that is a great PJ Documentary series and to be ripped off in the manner you describe is a scandel.

Secondly in respect of the UK Copyright Service? How much muscle does this have in comparison to the US Gov method because as I read it this UK service is a QUANGO of a sort and has not government teeth, or does it??? Has anyone had to exercise the registration in a case such as this in the UK?

Lastly, the BFP (Bureau of Freelance Photographers) would I suspect be interested in this 'case'. At the very least I think this would add to their file of lobby cases.

All the best for getting the images and the added words to give them meaning.

:)

[IMARLOW]

Box Brownie thank you for taking the time to post.

I didn't realise the copyright service existed, so i know nothing of its powers/ effectiveness etc.

The BFP sounds like a good idea, i will check this out later tonight and see what the score is.

Thanks for the kind words regarding the pics and words.

[tim]

Asking them to republish with image credit is too much IMHO, a section giving credit in the paper and payment is enough. They shouldn't get away with paying their standard fee, they need to be taught a lesson about this. If what they offer you isn't acceptable to you tell them you're going to get advice from a lawyer before accepting their offer.

[IMARLOW]

Thank you for the reply:
Having sought advice from legal types this evening i quote a section of the opinion given.
" this is a clear breach of copyright by an organisation which is highly experienced and which should know better.
Furthermore your moral right of attribution under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act have been breached. this is a serious matter which is badly compounded by the false attributions. your reasonable requests have been brushed aside. I sense a basis here for exemplary damages."

Again i can see why some people are saying requesting a re print with proper credit is too much, but the images concerned have been seen by a large number of readers and credit will have been seen to have been given to others.
In order to set the record straight i asked fo rthe images to be re printed in order that the individual images can be absolutely attributed to me.
As the next issue of this weekly publication will go to print tomorrow, sorry today.
Then the omission of any statement and or amendment clearly is nto going to happen.
So i now look for damages in this matter.
My personal view is there are enough people more than happy to profit from and devalue photogs work, it is way past time that we stood up for ourselves.
To sit back and let these peole get away with this kind of thing only ads to the plight.
In this case there is every likelyhood the images have been used in other publications by the same group, every copy sold has lined the coffers of this group and they would of merrily sat back and profited at my expense.
So if my request makes them or others appear unreasonable, i consider the their actions to be considerably more unreasonable.

[tim]

Image credit is effectively useless, no-one looks at it, and no-one remembers it. You want money, not your name under a photo.

[Dennis_Hammer]

IMARLOW I agree completely teach them that this not something that they can do to you or any other photographer. This isn't an issue of payment or credit its an issue of a company well versed in copyright not only stealing your images but trying to cover it up. Well your probably not the first one they did it to and if its just let them pay you and you shut up, you won't be the last. I would research into their other publications and see if they used those photos elsewhere. Add that to your action.

[Box Brownie]

The paper in question seems to be published by the Archant Group who amongst other titles also have Photography Monthly who run comps http://www.photographymonthly.com/Editorial.aspx?page=1039

And unlike some comps does not appear to be an image grab by any other name, below copy from the page linked above:-

"The copyright of all images remains with the photographer but Archant Specialist, Samsung Cameras and UKTV History reserve the right to free use of any submitted images for publicity with reference to this contest whether in print or on websites. A full name credit will be given wherever pictures are used."

I surmise it is the editorial team at the paper who are making local decisions and wonder if Archant would be happy knowing that such infringements are happening in one of their titles???

[amfoto1]

Well, if a suit is brought you can bet the parent company will hear about it pretty quickly.

I would not be too quick to settle, either.

It sounds as if the "legal types" smell blood in the water, so to speak.

Reprinting the entire image would be too much admission of wrong-doing, and is something you are unlikely to get, no matter whether it's right or wrong, without a court order (or whatever it's called in England). Event then, a good attorney (and all newspapers have them on retainer) could argue pretty convincingly that you simply can't "unring a bell". They'll try to say that what's done is done and reprinting the image with corrected attribution won't undo their "error". In a sense, from a totally unbiased perspective, they are right. The images are no longer newsworthy, so should not be republished.

I think all newspapers have a "corrections" area, usually on page two or three of the front section. That's what they have offered to do, publish a correction there.

Please understand, I'm not trying to make that argument against your request or how you feel it should go, to be fair. I'm just relaying what I'd expect them or their attorneys to say in their defense.

And, a court may go along with them here in the U.S. for one reason... the First Amendment of our Constitution. That says the government and its courts cannot stifle free speech and or trample on freedom of the press. And, a court ordering a newspaper to publish something would be no different... essentially government controlling the press. Might be different in England, I really don't know.

The subject of monetary awards potential is another thing entirely. If it's at all like US copyright law, the numbers can go very high, very quickly, in such a flagrant case of theft, most especially when it's done by people who know as much or more about copyright law than any of us do. This is where the courts would mete punishment to the infringer, and that's still on the table I imagine, since it's only just happened.

Here in the US it's absolutely key to get the image copyright registered. For one thing, no real legal action can be taken until that's been done. Also, the clock starts ticking from the date of first publication, anywhere. Once three months has passed, if the copyright still hasn't been registered, the infringer can breathe a big sigh of relief.

That's because even if they are found guilty, they are only obliged to pay "market rate" for their use of the images. Before the three month cutoff, large punitive damages can be levied, there are added awards for malicious and deliberate removal of a "watermark" or copyright notice that was on an image, and attorney's fees and court costs can be recovered. After that 3 month deadline, all those go away and it's hardly worth pursuing any longer.

Now, that's in the US. So, see if it's the same in England and get local and well qualified legal advice. You will probably get a free consultation from just about any savvy intellectual rights attorney. They'll be quite happy to see and talk to you, I'm sure!

[IMARLOW]

Ok in the spirit of fairness, though i dont feel particularly charitable at the moment.
My legal contact has amended his comments having had a chance to delve into Copyright Designs and Patents Act. S.70 - Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_4) deals with the moral right of attribution.

I'm afraid that the right must be asserted before it becomes a right. Very unsatisfactory and I can tell you that in continental Europe it is much stricter. Furthermore, it seems that photos used in newspapers are incapable of carrying the right of attribution in any case. It really is a very poor situation but nothing to be done about it. Sorry I got it wrong earlier. It has been a long time since I visited this legislation.

However, there is no doubt that there is a copyright breach. The false attribution is a serious matter and I would still suggest that you gather the information which I originally suggested and contact me.

I have replied to this email and put forward detailed facts to him for consideration, those details are best not divulged here for obvious reasons.
As th reprinting of images is looking to be a non starter, then as far as i am concerned any offer of settlement discussed is out of the window and a whole new line of thought is going to have to be brought in.
I'm advised not to discuss the matter with the paper or any of its group representatives until we have sorted out precisely what we intend to do with them.
My gut feeling is it aint going to be anything to get me on their Christmas card list this year.

[stathunter]

Sorry to hear about your situation but this has me thinking about copyrights---- I am going to start registering my photos. I read an article on how Chase Jarvis sued a large company for multi millions but it was thrown out because he did not register his images.
Here is what I found on how to register-- and there is a beta online program:http://www.copyright.gov/

[Mike-DT6]

Would that particular service apply to those of us outside the US as well? I presume so, considering the global nature of the internet, but I'm not really sure. :-)

Mike

[bacchanal]

Right now, at established daily papers here in the U.S. it would be pretty unlikely for this to happen. It might happen at some of the weeklies. And, U.S. newspapers are changing, getting down off their ethical high horses and playing in the mud more.

The local paper where I am is a joke. If it doesn't come from their staff photogs or the AP wire it is considered a "My Report" or something stupid like that...which they basically consider to be a license free submission from the general public. Even before they went to the My Report thing, it was very rare that they would ever credit a non-staff photographer...and I've never heard of them paying anyone for anything.

[sfaust]

Sorry to hear about your situation but this has me thinking about copyrights---- I am going to start registering my photos. I read an article on how Chase Jarvis sued a large company for multi millions but it was thrown out because he did not register his images.
Here is what I found on how to register-- and there is a beta online program:http://www.copyright.gov/

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it's in correct. Chase was involved in a Lawsuit with K2 (his only). His images were registered before the infringement. K2 infringed by using the images far beyond the scope of the original license. Chase sued and won on 58 counts of infringement, lost slides, etc, but the court also misinterpreted and misapplied one part of the law with regard to collective works. The legal team felt it was an important point to argue since it left a huge loophole for infringers. So they appealed and that point was reversed by the 9th Circuit Court or Appeals and sent back to to district court to review for willful infringement, statutory damages, etc., and is still pending.

[IMARLOW]

I have had a chat today with a legal beagle on this.
We coverd a hell of a lot of ground and ironed out any misunderstandings regarding the sequence of events and what has been printed etc.
In short i have decided to follow my chaps advice, which could ultimately result in a County Court claim being issued.
I think a stand has to be taken somewhere along the line, but i have to balance my wish to see a wrong is righted with that of future dealings with news media.
However i will not be put off by a large media group taking on a lone photog in court.
So unless they now want to settle with a sizeable payment it is looking like we will be arguing this in fornt of a County Court Judge.
The facts are very straight forward so i am interested to hear any mitigation they might want to try and use.
Letters are now being drafted (in legal mumbo jumbo) setting out what is required of this organisation, only time will tell what will eventually happen.
Thanks once again for all the replies i will keep the forum updated of progress.
Hopefully the information will prove useful to others too.

[stathunter]

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it's in correct. Chase was involved in a Lawsuit with K2 (his only). His images were registered before the infringement. K2 infringed by using the images far beyond the scope of the original license. Chase sued and won on 58 counts of infringement, lost slides, etc, but the court also misinterpreted and misapplied one part of the law with regard to collective works. The legal team felt it was an important point to argue since it left a huge loophole for infringers. So they appealed and that point was reversed by the 9th Circuit Court or Appeals and sent back to to district court to review for willful infringement, statutory damages, etc., and is still pending.

Thank you for setting me straight. I know very little about the case - and apologize if I got it incorrect. I think highly of Chase and am glad he is standing up for his rights.

[sfaust]

Thank you for setting me straight. I know very little about the case - and apologize if I got it incorrect. I think highly of Chase and am glad he is standing up for his rights.

No problem at all. I just hate to see incorrect information propagate since it tends to take a life of its own ;) I think he details most of the info on this case on his blog.

And yes, its great when someone steps up to the plate to defend our rights. Its costly, time consuming, and I haven't heard many photographers who enjoyed the process, win or loose. He definitely gets kudos from me.

[jbimages]

No problem at all. I just hate to see incorrect information propagate since it tends to take a life of its own ...

This is probably a good time to look at the reasons for registering copyright and even if it needs to be registered in the first place.

Copyright in a photograph or work of art belongs to the author of the work, in the case of a photographer, the person who presses the shutter button. There is a 'work for hire' exception but its not relevant in this case.

Most countries (including the US) are party to one or more of the major copyright treaties, and must therefore give automatic copyright protection to your material. The US has in addition a government run registration system which allows a copyright owner to sue for statutory damages if one sues for copyright infringement in the US. If the infringing party is not in the US, then it adds nothing. If the image is not registered at the copyright office, it is still protected by copyright, however you cannot sue for statutory damages.

The British registration is simply to provide a proper, independently verifiable, evidence of your work. This ensures that if another party steals your photos you have solid evidence to prove your claim. There are no 'statutory damages' available under the British act.


John

[sfaust]

the author of the work, in the case of a photographer, the person who presses the shutter button.

Fine point but worth mentioning... the author is the person who creates the image. If a photographer sets up the lighting, composition, positions the talent, directs the MUA, and so on, then asks an assistant to press the shutter button for him, the photographer is still the creator/author and owns the copyright.