How much compensation if a newspaper steals your picture

[jaybird]

I'd like to ask for some advice.

Let's say a major newspaper runs a front-page article meant to drive the sales for that particular edition and they use a photograph of yours to help push that article, and hence their sales of that edition, without your permission or consent. You only found out that they used your photo when you saw it being used on the front page of the newspaper.

What kind of compensation should you be looking for? How liable is that newspaper for copyright violation?

It would seem fairly serious to me as they would have stolen your photograph to use for their own profit and gain.

[airfrogusmc]

Talk to an attorney. ;)

[polarbare]

Definitely talk to an attorney since most of us are probably not versed in Kenyan law. :)

[TweakMDS]

Talk to an attorney. ;)
+1

I guess it depends on how much you could have asked for a photo as a photographer and how much they made off of it.
Talk to a lawyer and ask for the general estimate. Then ask another lawyer and decide if you wanna make them work for a fixed fee or commission ^_^

[jaybird]

Sorry, I should have changed my location. I'm acually back in Canada now. This was a Toronto newspaper.

[Mhappy]

I'd definitely call an attorney!!!!

I have no idea how much compensation you should look for... but you should definitely stand up and fight!!! It's YOUR photo, and a major newspaper should know better than run something without the photographer's consent.

If you don't mind me asking; how did they get you photo to begin with?

Maybe that'll help determine how much you should be compensated by how far they went to steal. ;)

[jaybird]

They stole the photo from an internet site: Facebook

[chakalakasp]

BTW, don't just look for an attorney, when you look make sure you look for an "Intellectual Property Attorney". I'm sure Canadia has more than a few -- but they'll have the expertise you need.

[zagiace]

you may also want to read up on the facebook user agreement you agreed to at the time you signed up. At one point their agreement said that they own the copyright to all images uploaded to facebook. I believe it has changed now but if you agreed to it they may have released it for you.
oh, and totally talk to an attorney.

[zagiace]

Here is an article I found
http://www.broadstuff.com/archives/324-Facebook-Copyright-have-you-read-the-small-print.html
excerpt:
When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and
direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in
order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content
on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you
automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you
have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable,
perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide
license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly
perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in
whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any
purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion
thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into
other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize
sublicenses of the foregoing.
This was from 2007, but I believe it depends on when you signed up.

[jaybird]

True, but this is for them using the pictures or promoting Facebook or within the site.

I did find some things on Canadian copyright law and there is an exception for what they call "fair dealing". If they quote the source and the author of the photograph then it isn't a violation. Now, another part states that the ownership of the photo remains with the person who took it. Funny part is that they don't know who I am so there is no way that they could quote me as the author of the photo.

I have to go and see a lawyer later today about a totally unrelated matter and I'll bring this up then as well.

[Tom Reichner]

True, but this is for them using the pictures or promoting Facebook or within the site.


But the agreement says that the license they are claiming is "transferrable" and that they have a right to "authorize sublicenses".

This terminology seems to indicate that they can allow whoever they want to use or publish the photo. I hope this is not the case, but the language seems to be in their (and the newspaper's) favor. If indeed the newspaper did obtain proper authorization from Facebook, Inc.

[holland_patrick]

what was the photo of?

[zagiace]

I would also contact the paper. If they did not know the image belonged to you they may be willing to negotiate.
What was the subject? They may also have subject release issues. You may own the copyright to the image, which may have been released unintentionally to Facebook, but a subject/model release is a different story.

[LittleRock]

wow keep us posted!!!

[Sunapollo]

I am interested in seeing what picture they stole from you.

[Analog6]

I don't put photos on Facebook, and I only put smaller, low res things on otehr sites. Guard your work, we have a saying here that 'they'll steal anything that's ain't nailed down" (and watch out if the bast@rds have a claw hammer! ).Protect your work!!

[ssim]

The laws vary here from what they are in the US and the compensation is not nearly as punitive either, which is a shame. If you haven't read through it, [url=http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/home]here is the Canadian Intellectual Property [url] site.

I had the name of an attorney in Toronto that specialized in this and I will see if I can find his name. It's been awhile so I don't know if my filing system is good enough that I will find it. In Alberta, if you call the Law Society of Alberta they will recommend an appropriate one for you. Here there are a select number of attorneys that will provide the first couple of hours of consultation with them for free providing you go through the society. I would be surprised if Ontario didn't have something similar.

This is definitely a slippery slope subject. There are those that say don't put anything online. Yet this is the method that many employ for promotion of their services. There are all the things that you can do to dissuade the theives from grabbing your image, watermarking, low res, small size, et all. At the end of the day a determined thief will do what they want and with the software available these days even some of the smaller low res images can be made to look decent. Not good but certainly decent.

You must have uploaded a fairly large image to facebook. I though that they had a limit on the size. For a newspaper to grab this from a facebook account to use on a front page they must have printed it small. The size they printed will also have a determination of what you should recieve in compensation.

While you can get opinions here, don't take them to heart and certainly get the opinion of a professional in this matter if you want to push it. It would be nice if you shared more details surrounding the image in question. I am intrigued as to what type of photo a large newspaper would find on facebook that is worthy of front page.

[ashleykaryl]

I would start by trying to find out what a newspaper of that kind would typically pay for an image with that usage and then send them an invoice for a slightly higher amount with a cover letter explaining why. Be polite and professional.

For editorial matters it's extremely unlikely that you will ever score a big amount of money and certainly not enough to justify spending hours with a lawyer. The newspaper and their legal department knows this too.

Unfortunately I've had to deal with far too many copyright infringements of my images over the years and it has caused a great deal of anguish at times. The best remedy though is to remain pragmatic and look for a financial solution.

[chakalakasp]

I would start by trying to find out what a newspaper of that kind would typically pay for an image with that usage and then send them an invoice for a slightly higher amount with a cover letter explaining why. Be polite and professional.

For editorial matters it's extremely unlikely that you will ever score a big amount of money and certainly not enough to justify spending hours with a lawyer. The newspaper and their legal department knows this too.

It depends where you live. In the United States, this is not the case; the law is a 400 pound gorilla and it's pretty indiscriminate about infringement. It makes me sad when I read people suggesting that photographers simply not put images online -- to me, this is like saying "the infringers win". There may be no way to stop 100% of infringers from stealing your images, but there are definitely (at least in the U.S.) strong, strong remedies after the fact, the kind that will hopefully deter infringers from ever stealing an image again. Honestly, I think if more U.S. photographers did the research, registered their images, and then contacted an IP attorney any time they found a significant infringement by a company, image theft would not be as much of a problem. The word would get around to companies that you must to pay for imagery, and photographers would be nearly always be fairly compensated, whether in a licensing agreement (as it should be), a settlement, or in a courtroom.

[canonnoob]

you can change it in your user settings on facebook.... id do that NOW. and then talk to an attorney

[ashleykaryl]

I am UK based so admittedly I was mainly referring to my experience here in Europe, however, I have seen that other companies I have dealt with including stock agencies have taken a very similar view, especially when the infringement is editorial rather than advertising based. Recently I have started registering all my images for copyright in the US prior to publication.

I am 110% in agreement with your stance on fighting copyright infringement Ryan but I am fighting a case now against one of the biggest companies in the world (US based) who used ten of my images on their website without my permission and it's far from easy battling against those law firms I can assure you no matter what the law says.

EDIT: I should add that I think stock agencies are a huge part of the problem here precisely because they don't chase up infringements properly on behalf of the photographers they represent. In the past I have spotted infringements and reported them but absolutely zero action has been taken by the libraries even though they had image exclusivity.

[Lunajen]

The laws vary here from what they are in the US and the compensation is not nearly as punitive either, which is a shame. If you haven't read through it, [url=http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/home]here is the Canadian Intellectual Property [url] site.


T.

You must have uploaded a fairly large image to facebook. I though that they had a limit on the size. For a newspaper to grab this from a facebook account to use on a front page they must have printed it small. The size they printed will also have a determination of what you should recieve in compensation.


Actually, all they need is a file at 150 dpi or at least the paper I freelance for does.

[wickerprints]

Actually, all they need is a file at 150 dpi or at least the paper I freelance for does.

But if the dimensions of the image are only 150x150 pixels, if printed at 150ppi the image would only be 1 square inch.

Pixel count absolutely matters when it comes to print size, not just ppi, which is simply a scale factor.

[zagiace]

Newspaper image quality has never been a very big concern with the media. Its the image impact that concerns them. Given 2 images, one stellar quality and one with dramatic impact and quality will always lose.

[rx7speed]

True, but this is for them using the pictures or promoting Facebook or within the site.

I did find some things on Canadian copyright law and there is an exception for what they call "fair dealing". If they quote the source and the author of the photograph then it isn't a violation. Now, another part states that the ownership of the photo remains with the person who took it. Funny part is that they don't know who I am so there is no way that they could quote me as the author of the photo.

I have to go and see a lawyer later today about a totally unrelated matter and I'll bring this up then as well.

I would assume fair dealing is like our fair use in the states. sure you have to quote the person who took the picture but that doesn't mean you are off the hook with just that. it has to be used in more of an editorial nature and such rather then in an advertising/commercial area as this sounds like it would be.
but agreed with others talk to a lawyer

[Karl Johnston]

T

You must have uploaded a fairly large image to facebook. I though that they had a limit on the size. For a newspaper to grab this from a facebook account to use on a front page they must have printed it small. The size they printed will also have a determination of what you should recieve in compensation.

Not so, a newspaper only requires 150 DPI ..I've had full pages done of my images that were compressed save-for-web jpegs (12.5 kb to be exact) pulled directly off of my website (watermark and all, thanks for the advertising :) ! This is why I don't care..) reprinted in newsprint.

[wickerprints]

150 DPI is not the same as 150 PPI.

I keep repeating myself but pixel count does matter. If you have a tiny image, say, 150x150 pixels, there is NO way to print that out to tabloid size without it looking like crap. That would be about 14 PPI.

DPI has nothing to do with how large the image is printed nor how much resolution the image has. DPI is a measure of the printer's resolution, and as such, has no bearing on the image. It says how many "dots" (as in dots of ink) are printable in a single linear inch. In a four-color process using opaque inks, you need more than one dot to represent a single color pixel--often several dots, in fact.

The different types of printing technology that have been developed can sometimes make DPI comparison difficult. Dye-sublimation printing, for example, uses translucent dyes bound to rolls of plastic film, which are selectively heated to sublimate the dye directly onto the paper. Because the "ink" is translucent, the reproduced color is more or less exact--it is the overlay of the component dyes, rather than a halftoning illusion. This is why a typical dye-sub printer can have maybe only 300-600 DPI, and yet produce photorealistic output, whereas an inkjet printer could have 2400 DPI, yet fail to provide smooth gradations, especially where the output is light.

Offset printing using halftone screens is also another example where DPI is misleading--typically these have extremely high DPI, around 4800, but this is not meaningful because of the way the image is composed.

The takeaway is that DPI is a function of the printing device, not the image or the printing directive (how to print the image).

Pixels per inch (PPI) is, as I have said previously, the scale factor that tells the printer how large the image is to be printed. The actual number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical dimension are the other values that, along with PPI, ultimately determine the size of the printed image. An image @ 600 x 400 pixels printed at 100 PPI will have physical dimensions of 6 inches by 4 inches. Simple. At 150 PPI, the image will be 4 inches by 8/3 inches. At 400 PPI it will be 1.5 inches by 1 inch.

As you can see, a 600 x 400 pixel image is not very large on screen, but can produce an acceptable result if printed at 150 PPI. How large would an image need to be in order to print it at 14 x 11 tabloid size @ 150 PPI? That's simple, just multiply:

14 * 150 = 2100 pixels
11 * 150 = 1650 pixels.

That would be the requirement were the print directive was indeed a true 150 PPI. But PPI is not DPI, as mentioned previously. A typical pixel is composed of more than one halftone dot. So if the printing device has a resolution of only 150 DPI, it may correspond to a PPI value of maybe a quarter of that amount, so maybe only 40 PPI. It would look lousy, but that's a product of the printing device. Increasing the PPI would not improve the quality of the output.

[SuzyView]

Newspapers do not require high res. And this is a long road to go with an attorney. I do post on Facebook, but I am careful what I post. I've seen this happen way too many times. And I have had photos published in the news, but I authorize each time. If this happened to me, I don't think I'd be upset. The money for pictures of events or celebrities is hard to come by.

[dr1ft]

Does your photo have a model? A model release?

[basroil]

They stole the photo from an internet site: Facebook

If you posted the photo on facebook yourself, tough luck, use a massive watermark next time. You have absolutely no grounds to sue in any country due to the license type you signed when posting the photograph to facebook.

If you didn't post the photo on facebook and it was taken from there, then you should contact a lawyer and also register the photographs with your local copyright office (if your country requires it for full coverage of copyright protections).

[zagiace]

If you posted the photo on facebook yourself, tough luck, use a massive watermark next time. You have absolutely no grounds to sue in any country due to the license type you signed when posting the photograph to facebook.

If you didn't post the photo on facebook and it was taken from there, then you should contact a lawyer and also register the photographs with your local copyright office (if your country requires it for full coverage of copyright protections).
Depends on what agreement you have agreed to. They have changed it a couple of times. If you search their help documents you will find this:
qouted from http://www.facebook.com/help/search.php?hq=copyright&ref=hq
Do I retain the copyright and other legal rights to material I upload to Facebook?
Yes, you retain the copyright to your content. When you upload your content, you grant us a license to use and display that content. For more information please visit our Terms of Use, which contain information about intellectual property, as well as your privileges and responsibilities as a Facebook user.

[chakalakasp]

If you posted the photo on facebook yourself, tough luck, use a massive watermark next time. You have absolutely no grounds to sue in any country due to the license type you signed when posting the photograph to facebook.

If you didn't post the photo on facebook and it was taken from there, then you should contact a lawyer and also register the photographs with your local copyright office (if your country requires it for full coverage of copyright protections).

Nope, you're wrong.

[basroil]

Facebook has always included a section that says something like: you grant us a unlimited worldwide, transferable, sub-licensable license that is revoked when you delete it from your page, except for any copies made that are still on the service. It also doesn't matter what agreement you signed up with, they all include a clause that says it can be updated at any time. I could have sworn that OP had an extra post that said the newspaper had a facebook page with that image also in it, so as far as the agreement goes, they sublicensed an image from facebook, and they don't need to give anyone squat because they have a valid (though sketchy) license from facebook to use it (and facebook has all the right in the world, quite literally, to do so according to the agreement). zagiace, a FAQ is not the same as the actual agreement, and is in fact misleading. If you read the agreement, it's quite sketchy.

Depends on what agreement you have agreed to. They have changed it a couple of times. If you search their help documents you will find this:
qouted from http://www.facebook.com/help/search.php?hq=copyright&ref=hq
Do I retain the copyright and other legal rights to material I upload to Facebook?
Yes, you retain the copyright to your content. When you upload your content, you grant us a license to use and display that content. For more information please visit our Terms of Use, which contain information about intellectual property, as well as your privileges and responsibilities as a Facebook user.

Nope, you're wrong.

[hughes_57]

So what was the picture?

[MJPhotos24]

Does your photo have a model? A model release?
Newspapers don't need model releases, it's editorial.

[zagiace]

Facebook has always included a section that says something like: you grant us a unlimited worldwide, transferable, sub-licensable license that is revoked when you delete it from your page, except for any copies made that are still on the service. It also doesn't matter what agreement you signed up with, they all include a clause that says it can be updated at any time. I could have sworn that OP had an extra post that said the newspaper had a facebook page with that image also in it, so as far as the agreement goes, they sublicensed an image from facebook, and they don't need to give anyone squat because they have a valid (though sketchy) license from facebook to use it (and facebook has all the right in the world, quite literally, to do so according to the agreement). zagiace, a FAQ is not the same as the actual agreement, and is in fact misleading. If you read the agreement, it's quite sketchy.

Yes, the FAQ is not the TOS:
Like I had said before, it has changed from Facebook claiming to own irrevocable rights to anything posted or uploaded to the current:


You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how we share your content through your privacy (http://www.facebook.com/privacy/) and application (http://www.facebook.com/editapps.php) settings. In order for us to use certain types of content and provide you with Facebook, you agree to the following:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy (http://www.facebook.com/privacy/) and application (http://www.facebook.com/editapps.php) settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account (except to the extent your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it).
When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).I believe the terminology is pretty close to what it was in the previous agreement but you did not have the option to opt out in your privacy settings.

[chakalakasp]

Facebook has always included a section that says something like: you grant us a unlimited worldwide, transferable, sub-licensable license that is revoked when you delete it from your page, except for any copies made that are still on the service. It also doesn't matter what agreement you signed up with, they all include a clause that says it can be updated at any time. I could have sworn that OP had an extra post that said the newspaper had a facebook page with that image also in it, so as far as the agreement goes, they sublicensed an image from facebook, and they don't need to give anyone squat because they have a valid (though sketchy) license from facebook to use it (and facebook has all the right in the world, quite literally, to do so according to the agreement). zagiace, a FAQ is not the same as the actual agreement, and is in fact misleading. If you read the agreement, it's quite sketchy.

Regardless, unless Facebook specifically granted the paper a license to print the image in the paper, then the paper very much can be sued by the photographer. Of course, it may not be worth the while, but I doubt Facebook granted the paper a license (assuming they even have the legal authority) to print the image in the actual newspaper. Thus, the image was unlicensed.

[jbimages]

Some photographers have a degree of success, http://************/ldceng is about a Murdoch rag paying up after being caught pinching a photo.

[hughes_57]

Still wondering what the was the picture of?