Copyright infringement

Kieranstandishphoto said:
For example our licence states that our client can do what they want with the images we provide within their own business, however they cannot sell or give the images to anyone outside of their business.
Click to expand...
Read it again; that line states effectively exactly the same thing...
"you grant US a perpetual, royalty free, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and licence to use, reproduce, publish, communicate to the public, translate, create derivative works from and distribute such content into any form, medium or technology now known or hereafter developed. In addition, you waive any and all moral rights in such content."

It's nearly a complete rights grab, but unless there is other wording that wasn't quoted it's not quite...
They cannot sell nor give the images outside of "their business" because the rights/license granted are not transferable/assignable/sub-licensable. The only rights waived are the moral rights... which means they don't have to give you credit when they make a complete mess out of your image and you can't complain.
It's a fine point and could be expensive to resolve, but the rights stated do not include transferring to a 3rd party for them to distribute/communicate/publish for their purposes.

Edit: TBH, I'm kind of surprised they left that hole... most with these kinds of terms don't.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Read it again; that line states effectively exactly the same thing...
"you grant US a perpetual, royalty free, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and licence to use, reproduce, publish, communicate to the public, translate, create derivative works from and distribute such content into any form, medium or technology now known or hereafter developed. In addition, you waive any and all moral rights in such content."

It's nearly a complete rights grab, but unless there is other wording that wasn't quoted it's not quite...
They cannot sell nor give the images outside of "their business" because the rights/license granted are not transferable/assignable/sub-licensable. The only rights waived are the moral rights... which means they don't have to give you credit when they make a complete mess out of your image.
It's a fine point and could be expensive to resolve, but the rights stated do not include transferring to a 3rd party for them to distribute/communicate/publish for their purposes.
Click to expand...
I think the distribute bit would be the arguing point in court, bit as you say, it would be expensive to argue the point.
 
Thanks for all your comments.

Just to clear things up. The photo was only ever posted to Flickr.
The Liverpool Echo Flickr group has different T&Cs to those that apply to posting directly to Liverpool Echo. After saying that I think it's far more likely that whoever lifted the photo to place in the video found it through a google search.

I'll contact the agency and see where I get to. I'm prepared to turn a blind eye to smaller outfits using my images, but I don't think we should let the big boys, who really should know better to get away with it.
 
mark-p said:
I'm prepared to turn a blind eye to smaller outfits using my images, but I don't think we should let the big boys, who really should know better to get away with it.
Click to expand...

Smaller outfits should know better.. Turning a blind eye just encourages them to get away with it... Personally i will go after whoever rips me off and steals from me no matter how small or large..
 
KIPAX said:
Smaller outfits should know better.. Turning a blind eye just encourages them to get away with it... Personally i will go after whoever rips me off and steals from me no matter how small or large..
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree! Very sorry but image infringement is a massive problem and if people are not educated then it is only going to get worse.
 
However it is packaged the Liverpool Echo doesn;t come out smelling of roses does it?

I could be wrong but the wording to me smacks of legalised theft. Getting photos for free without having to pay for photographers wages...
 
sk66 said:
"Retaining copyright" doesn't mean you didn't grant the usage...
I've seen more than a few sites/groups/contest where they proudly proclaim you retain all copyrights. But as far as your dealings with them go you've waived them all in the small print.
And yes, I've won some and walked away from some... but I'm also in the US.
Click to expand...
Have you experience and do you find that copyright infringements and resulting chases are multiple times more difficult where the infringer is based in another country compared to if they are in the same country /state?
 
jamesev said:
Have you experience and do you find that copyright infringements and resulting chases are multiple times more difficult where the infringer is based in another country compared to if they are in the same country /state?
Click to expand...
If they are in another country that doesn't respect/enforce your copyrights it's a lost cause... And even if the country does, it's going to be prohibitively expensive if you have to go through their legal system (unless you have the knowledge/time/ability yourself).

Usually best to just try to resolve such issues between individuals... and only pursue legal courses (representation/court/etc) if it worth a lot of money (and it's probably not).
 
sk66 said:
If they are in another country that doesn't respect/enforce your copyrights it's a lost cause... And even if the country does, it's going to be prohibitively expensive if you have to go through their legal system (unless you have the knowledge/time/ability yourself).

Usually best to just try to resolve such issues between individuals... and only pursue legal courses (representation/court/etc) if it worth a lot of money (and it's probably not).
Click to expand...
That’s not conducive to preventing copyright breaches unfortuneatly and I suspect those breaching know it’s not worth them being persued
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top