Blatent Copyright infringement!

OldA1 wrote in post #14929007
I am getting hung up on the fact that the images were copied BEFORE returning the CD.

Am I missing something. I can't see where the OP mentions the client sending the CD back - not that that makes any difference.

The law doesn't work based on the impression someone gives only on facts - and you don't need permission to make copies of images that you have licensed, when the normal licensed use of the image will in itself require that copies be made.

• The facts are is that a contract was agreed which grants them the rights to use the image.
  
• Their failure to abide by the contract is a breach of that contract.
  
• Breaching a contract doesn't make it cease to exist (except in certain extreme conditions)
  

Copyright law of the United Kingdom

Numenorean wrote in post #14925726
you actually sent them photos BEFORE getting paid? There's your problem.

Some large clients have such a complicated approval process that it can take a few months to be paid.
First, always get a P.O. number. (Purchase Order.)
Second, include this in the contract: "#. Grant of Rights. Upon receipt of full payment, Photographer grants to the Client the following rights in the Work."

Dan Marchant wrote in post #14933111
Am I missing something. I can't see where the OP mentions the client sending the CD back - not that that makes any difference.

phil1664 wrote in post #14925594
But I have never given them the impression that they may go ahead and use the image. They actually sent the discs back to me.

I would have thought it makes a difference, they are using photos that they have no rights too and making money from them.

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #14934065
I would have thought it makes a difference, they are using photos that they have no rights too and making money from them.

OK Missed that bit. But no, legally it makes no difference. This is still a breach of contract case.

Without reading everything here in detail. There PROBABLY ISN"T a COPYRIGHT case here...... (AT LEAST HOW IT STANDS).

(BTW I went back and read some of the posts DAN MERCHANT hits it all right on the head)

WHY? In law school they taught us to look at the issues and see what is there....

You made an agreement to sell them images with some usage rights. WE need to assume they are using the images as you granted them rights...

FIRST::::>>
Its a collection case. You never got paid, you need to get a collection agent to beat the money out of them. UNLESS your agreement said "NO RIGHTS TRANSFER UNTIL PAID IN FULL", you can only try to collect the money....... BTW if the agreement DIDN"T say IF YOU DONT PAY and I have to collect, you pay the costs of the collection" in that case you are stuck paying your collection costs... Which means you had (was it?) $1100US less the cost of the lawyer, which means you basically get NOTHING......

SECOND::::>>>>

Change it into a BREACH OF CONTRACT CASE. You have an agreement to supply images in exchange for $$$$$. You supplied images, they didn't supply $$$. You send them a letter that says. You breached our contract, I WANT MY IMAGES BACK......

NOW, they can go to court to prove that they paid for them (which they obviously can't prove); you simply need to prove they didn't pay and NOW they are on the hook for a COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASE.....

Problem here is people on this site and photographers in general are NOT LAWYERs and for the most part have no clue about law (if they did then they'd be lawyers, even my buddy JAY BECKMAN who will be at RENO shooting with me in a couple of weeks). Also photographers (as well as countless other groups of people) don't want to hire a lawyer to give them advice which allows them to avoid this situation. They ask their mom, their dad, their neighbors, their gardener, but never a lawyer.....

Last I hate the POST PERFORMANCE PRICE REDUCTIONS/NEGOGIATION​S...... You produce pictures, they say NOTHING.... You say pay me..... They say the pictures were bad, BUT I'LL TAKE THEM and USE THEM if I can pay you half. Well if they are CRAP, why would they want to use them at all? If they don't like them, there is a contract, PAY ME and then you can toss them out..... Just pay me.......

So you guys need to look at these closer..... The facts that is.......

Mark H

It's been a while since I started this thread but I now have a final result for what happened, how it was dealt with and what the company were liable for. Although this is relevant in the UK, I would suggest that the contract law concerned may be applicable in other countries.

Firstly, the circumstances ar as described; the company asked me do complete some photograpy, which I did, then they refused to make payment, stating that they were not happy with the quality. Despite negotiations, the company completely refused and returned the discs.

Some months later, I found that the company were using my images. After checking all their sites, they were using 83 images and had repeated them 350 times throughout their sites.

Initial contact with the company led to them sticking to their story that they were not paying. So, it was onto the lawyers. A family friend has some experience in this area so made a few calls to some other lawyers.

Legally, the position was that the company had breached the contract by taking the images and not paying for them. In addition, as they were now using them without my permission, they were also in breach of my copyright.

I wrote to the company pointing this out and they offered £6.44 ($10) for 50 images, stating that that was the going rate for stock images from istock. As you can imagine, this was refused for the obvious reasons and a counter offer made.

The end result? I got the £700 that I was owed, they got the discs and use of the images under licence.

I could have taken it all the way to court and would have had a solid case, but getting what I was owed in the first place was enough for me and meant that there was no rik of loss, no more stress and worry and I can move on.


All in all, a very important lesson learnt and hopefully, for those that have read this, something that can be avoided. Next time, there will be a written contract, line agreement and firmer timelines.

Thank for everyone who commented too.

Good outcome .... Congrats


Mark H

I would think that by them using the images anyway, triple the fee would be reasonable. That might make them think twice next time. Pay £700 now or £2100 later?

Ray Marrero wrote in post #15986468
I would think that by them using the images anyway, triple the fee would be reasonable. That might make them think twice next time. Pay £700 now or £2100 later?

100% agree. Maybe UK law is different, but you would have a killer case here in the colonies. I would want to break it off in them for being such asses.

It does seem like it's a no-lose situation for the infringer in this case. They can just keep on signing contracts and not paying, and the worst they'll ever do is pay the original amount.

Trying to discourage that type of behavior is part of the reason for Damages.

You went through all that and you only got 700 Pounds?!? If they were to "refuse" my images, refuse to pay, and then end up using my images, it's straight to court. And it's not just ONE image. You mentioned they used 83 images. That's a crap load. And they offered you $10 for 50 images? What a joke

I know you felt like you got what you originally "wanted" but I think you got robbed here my friend

It's all a balance of how far to go. Yes, I could have gone to court and I could have got a lot more but in turn, that would have taken a lot longer and, there's always a slim risk that with a smart arse lawyer, they could alway mount a defence and in turn, reduce any damages.

What I did, was make a decision which put me back on the level. Like I said, I got what I was looking for in the first place and decided to leave it there. Very important lesson learnt and not a mistake I will ever make again!

Its good to see a reasonable outcome. All professionals have to fight for the value of their services.

Wow... really blows that you had to go through all that just to get what you had agreed to get in the first place. Congrats on getting it resolved, though. Definitely a good lesson not to hand over the final product without payment.