I received a Flickrmail a few days ago requesting the use of one of mu photos. That in itself is not the issue. In the e-mail, it was disclosed to me that the reason why they want to use my photo is because it was used in a presentation at a convention given by a non-profit organization called TED and they want to keep my picture, with credits, in their archives. This is part of the e-mail I received...
"One of the speakers at the TED Global 2013 conference used the image in a presentation. We would like to request permission to archive this image as part of the recorded video of his presentation that would be posted to TED.com.
The image is used as one of the visual slides that appear on the stage monitor during his 10-minute talk. TED is a non-profit devoted to ideas worth sharing, and the videos on our site are free for everyone to watch."
The problem I have with this is multi-faceted. Firstly, my photos are copyrighted and downloading of them is disabled. That means the only way the speaker could have acquired my photo was by making a screen shot of it, which IMO amounts to theft. Secondly, the picture was used before asking for my permission. I would have gladly allowed them to use it (for a small price) and provided them with the digital file, which would be far better than the screen-shot. They say it is sometimes easier to ask for forgiven than for permission, and I think this is the logic that is being used here. I have a friend who's an attorney and have asked her to look at this for me. I haven't heard from her yet but should shortly. Even though it is after the fact, I would probably let them use it for the stated purpose as long as I get paid and proper credits are given. Non-profit or not, they are not entitled to steel copyrighted material. Plus it appears that they charge attendees a pretty decent admission fee for attending these conferences and I am quite sure that the other service providers are getting paid. I haven't found the video yet, but I am looking for it.
What is your opinion? BTW, I have no intention to sue them for $1.6M.