Found my photo in a magazine, with no credit or permission

I took a photo of a guy fishing a year ago. He asked me to email it to him as a favor and I did.
Today, I open a magazine and found the photo with it saying "Courtesy of XXXXXX" where his name was in the X.

What is going on here. Normally I would be stoked for the guy, but he's a bit of a snake in the fishing community.

Thanks. Please, cite any laws or facts if possible.

Drakeskakes wrote in post #16707803
I took a photo of a guy fishing a year ago. He asked me to email it to him as a favor and I did.
Today, I open a magazine and found the photo with it saying "Courtesy of XXXXXX" where his name was in the X.

What is going on here. Normally I would be stoked for the guy, but he's a bit of a snake in the fishing community.

Thanks. Please, cite any laws or facts if possible.

No contract....that''s the way it is

This kind of question comes up often in the Business forum. Here's a recent example:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1356551

If you post there, you'll get answers from people who know the laws and the facts as well as people who don't.

The fisherman owns the copy you gave him. He doesn't own the rights to the image. He may not have a reason to know the difference, but the magazine editor does have one.

A quick search on copyright infringement on this site should get you a wealth of information.

PS -- this should be in discussion, not photo sharing.

Contact the publication. They should know better than to blindly publish something like that.

Make sure your copyright info appears in the metadata. Depending on the camera you have, you can have the camera do it.

Czbrat271 wrote in post #16708601
Make sure your copyright info appears in the metadata. Depending on the camera you have, you can have the camera do it.

How would it help in this situation, where the OP found the image in a physical magazine?

kenwood33 wrote in post #16709762
How would it help in this situation, where the OP found the image in a physical magazine?

A printed mag that was generated from digital files. Having the metadata embedded on the file is useful to prove ownership.

If it's obvious that the photo could not have been a "selfie" then the publication cannot claim ignorance either. They know damn well someone snapped it, and since they're a publication they also know damn well that the person who did so has the copyright.

Absent something in writing releasing or assigning that copyright they've got a problem. However, if you never registered the photo with the copyright office and there was no watermark you have a problem too, because while you can sue you can also only recover actual damages, which are likely small -- and the publication knows that too. In a print pub there's no continuing use (as on the web); in the web case a DMCA takedown notice is a fairly-decent sized club available to you that's not in a one-shot print situation.

The 900lb gorilla in the room is statutory damages but absent a watermark or registered copyright you can't get those - only actual damages. If you haven't already registered the photo you're "out of window" to be able to do it now.

(All US based here; YMMV if the publication is not a US one.)

You have 90 days from the infringement to register the copyright, so go ahead and do it NOW. Metadata and watermark are irrelevant right now unless they removed a watermark.


https://asmp.org …-rights.html#.UwzNKvldV​hw

Is this a different magazine and a different guy than the one you asked about here?
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1362269

No:

That's the problem. The publication already happened and the photo is a year old, so it's out-of-window for registration to obtain statutory damages and, at least as important, fees and costs, which are a huge problem since they come out of your recovery. Further, if it's a trade magazine or similar the meaningful sales all happen within days of release, so impounding of infringing copies is of little harm to the publisher.

This is why that "every 90 day" disk sent in for registration with all your new work, while it has a small cost and hassle associated with it, is well worth the trouble.

tickerguy wrote in post #16710944
If it's obvious that the photo could not have been a "selfie" then the publication cannot claim ignorance either. They know damn well someone snapped it, and since they're a publication they also know damn well that the person who did so has the copyright.

Unless the person used a tripod and a remote trigger (which is unlikely, but possible). I do understand what you are saying though.....

Question that might be relevant.

Does him giving a copy to the friend count as "publication?" If not, does the magazine count as the first publication, if he hasn't posted this online?