Have you shot these musicians?

[blackshadow]

Technically this may be off topic but I think it is relevant to those who frequent this particular forum.

If you have shot any of the artists below in the last 12 months or so and posted any photos on flickr there is a good chance they are being leeched by www.heinekenmusic.ie

I was alerted to this by seeing links on my flickr stats - if it wasn't for that I wouldn't have had any idea that they were being used on a commercial website.

Someone has started a flickr group at http://www.flickr.com/groups/thatsmypic/ I encourage you to join this group if your photos are being leeched.

The artists I have identified are:
The Prodigy
dEUS
REM
Amy Winehouse
David Guetta
Kaiser Chiefs
Rage Against The Machine
Kosheen
Groove Armada
Stereophonics
Interpol
The Fratellis
Justice
Radioslave
Aphex Twin
Delays
The Ting Tings
The Kooks
Panic at the Disco
Counting Crows
MSTRKRFT
Kate Nash
Calvin Harris
The Zutons
Roisin Murphy
Bowling for Soup
Powderfinger
Pendulum
Boys Noise
The Pogues
Kavinsky
MGMT
Band of Horses
Seasick Steve
Ian Brown

[johnstoy]

This is good reading Richard... Good job dude.

[johnms88]

Wait...is that a list of bands I WISH i could shoot?

If so, then half of them are on my list.

[René Damkot]

I see they are using your shot of Seasick Steve?
http://img.skitch.com/20080703-e1fxjgub33wsiadkpb67sauygw.jpg

Are any steps being taken?

[blackshadow]

I'm seeking legal advice at the moment Rene - as are a number of other people. My lawyer will have a look at it over the weekend. They are well versed in these issues.

[marathon]

wow... i didn't expect this from a big company like heineken. that ain't right.

ps. when i read the title of this thread, i wanted to say "yes, i shot tupac." :p

[skifurthur]

Richard...depending on what you find out, and if you need it, I have access to some heavy legal people here in the states who deal with issues like this. This seems like a class actionable tort.

[londonblue007]

Hey guys,

After a quick look, I think that they have some form of corporate sponsorship style connections with flickr and youtube. If this is the case, then they may actually be using your photos fairly based on the terms and conditions everyone signed when they get a flickr account. So, if that is true, you may not be able to do anything :cry:, Otherwise, you've probably got a case :D.

- Phil

[bacchanal]

Hey guys,

After a quick look, I think that they have some form of corporate sponsorship style connections with flickr and youtube. If this is the case, then they may actually be using your photos fairly based on the terms and conditions everyone signed when they get a flickr account. So, if that is true, you may not be able to do anything :cry:, Otherwise, you've probably got a case :D.

- Phil

Well, wouldn't that be interesting.

[narlus]

another good reason not to use Flickr as a hosting site...

[blackshadow]

another good reason not to use Flickr as a hosting site...

Yes there are risks in that.

One photographer's agent has already been promised payment from the website for displaying his shots, so they obviously know they are in the wrong. He's getting $500 US per image they used.

I'm hoping the lawyer I am using will extract the same for me (and others).

[blackshadow]

A few hours ago I sent off a letter of demand along with a hefty invoice to the person responsible for www.heinekenmusic.ie - the letter had been vetted by my attorney and she was cced into the correspondence.

I just had a bit of a look and it seem that "all rights reserved" images have been removed from www.heinekenmusic.ie and only images available under creative commons are left.

Looks like there is some action going on there...

[marathon]

interesting development...

i never really understood that 'creative commons' thing though...

[bacchanal]

interesting development...

i never really understood that 'creative commons' thing though...

I use it for my PA stuff (via a statement on my website and in the photo meta data). It is a way of putting some standard limitations on usage rights without being too restrictive. I actually use CC Non-Commercial, No Derivatives for most things that I do...which in theory would not allow Heineken to use the images for commercial use, but it does allow diy artists to put the images on their myspace.

Btw...as I understand it, CC is not a replacement for Copyright, it simply is a way of defining usage rights.

[blackshadow]

Latest development is the whole website has been pulled and there is just a place holder there.

[johnstoy]

Latest development is the whole website has been pulled and there is just a place holder there.


Sounds like positive progress from your end...Keep up the great work.

[Ballen Photo]

Latest development is the whole website has been pulled and there is just a place holder there.
This is GREAT news! Maybe now they will start making legitimate offers for image use? :rolleyes:
-Bruce

[skifurthur]

This is GREAT news! Maybe now they will start making legitimate offers for image use? :rolleyes:
-Bruce

While the company responding to a legitimate claim is good news, I doubt that they will budget more money to contact and compensate photographers in the future. More likely they will deal with a service who already has some rights to photos.

I'm afraid this is going to be a case of begging forgiveness rather than negotiate rights.

[Ballen Photo]

I'm afraid this is going to be a case of begging forgiveness rather than negotiate rights.
I'm sure You're probably right, but at least bringing that site down was a step in the right direction. :)
-Bruce

[René Damkot]

Taking it down now doesn't alter the fact that they've used the images I'd say...

[narlus]

right...now the legal wrangling begins...

[skifurthur]

I'm sure You're probably right, but at least bringing that site down was a step in the right direction. :)
-Bruce

If nothing else, that marketing/web site company that worked for the client won't do that again.

Taking it down now doesn't alter the fact that they've used the images I'd say...

If people have screen captures, they can probably still get paid...something. Of course now the tightrope walk begins between copyright holder and the company that used it (actually the companies lawyers). Do you go high in your invoice or do you go low with the idea that they will buy more from you. Hopefully the images were also registered which makes the company liable for other damages.

right...now the legal wrangling begins...

Yep. I see it all the time. I just ran into one of those "legal" things today. Recently a band member for my primary client died. I was asked to provide an image, for free, that management could provide to news organizations who did stories. I was happy to do it because I am making my money from them in a lot of other areas. A magazine decided to run a cover and feature on that band member. I have a few photos in that magazine for this story. I also provided a number of possible cover shots to them. Management sent them my free photo saying they could freely use it and now I actually "lost" a cover to myself.

Oh the joys of being in business...LOL.

[blackshadow]

If nothing else, that marketing/web site company that worked for the client won't do that again.

The web marketing company is www.boondoggle.eu (http://www.boondoggle.eu) - they seem to have an A list clientele of international brands. There is a posting on their blog at http://blog.boondoggle.eu/2008/06/kawabunga-heine.html that is particularly interesting:

Normally our player should've only display photos with commercial CC license, he're gone something terribly wrong and we've currently disabled the flickr photos module on the player. We're currently looking into the thread on Flickr and see what we can do for the photographers ...

I'm sorry if we've offended photographers ...
If people have screen captures, they can probably still get paid...something. Of course now the tightrope walk begins between copyright holder and the company that used it (actually the companies lawyers). Do you go high in your invoice or do you go low with the idea that they will buy more from you. Hopefully the images were also registered which makes the company liable for other damages.

I have screen captures and so do a number of other photographers. I went high (due to the unauthorised use). The way my letter was worded allows for me to go higher if there are costs involved for recovering payment.

I have given them a deadline of 5pm today (9 July) Ireland time or I will be instructing my attorney to go about recovering the fees. It will be interesting to see what their response will be.


Yep. I see it all the time. I just ran into one of those "legal" things today. Recently a band member for my primary client died. I was asked to provide an image, for free, that management could provide to news organizations who did stories. I was happy to do it because I am making my money from them in a lot of other areas. A magazine decided to run a cover and feature on that band member. I have a few photos in that magazine for this story. I also provided a number of possible cover shots to them. Management sent them my free photo saying they could freely use it and now I actually "lost" a cover to myself.

Oh the joys of being in business...LOL.

What a bastard to lose a cover to!;)