does anyone here enjoy gambling....

whitewash

whitewash

Fishy Fingers
Messages
5,307
Edit My Images
Yes
i do!

anyone prepared to put a bit of a wager as to whether my name will appear next to my images if they appear in the whats on guide of prestons local rag on friday? i am, and im prepared to wager £5 that my name will not be there.

my friend has submitted my images with a preview of his bands gig. each of these images is correctly titled and tagged with a copyright notice that says that the image is not to be archieved or retained, is single use, and must not be used without my name (Jamie Barber ww.whitewashimages.co.uk) within the locale of the image.


im prepared to put money on this information being ignored by the newspaper and me writing a VERY stroppy letter to them next week, i know this because they have screwed me over twice before by ignoring my copyright notice attached to the pictures and then to rub salt in my wounds they retained the image on file and reused it a few months down the line.....


but im not doing this to help the paper, im doing it because my friends band need the publicity, im not doing it to help the paper in any way shape or form.


so is anyone else a gambler and prepared to wager on this?
 
So why are you bothered about getting your name up if you're doing it to help a mate?

Do you have some form of contract with paper that specifies this is so?

If not, you're skating on pretty thin ice as by supplying them with an image to use without the terms clearly laid out and agreed by both parties you've effectively handed copyright over to them.

I'm willing to stand corrected on this one, where's gary when you need him? Eh?
 
Gandhi said:
So why are you bothered about getting your name up if you're doing it to help a mate?

Do you have some form of contract with paper that specifies this is so?

If not, you're skating on pretty thin ice as by supplying them with an image to use without the terms clearly laid out and agreed by both parties you've effectively handed copyright over to them.

I'm willing to stand corrected on this one, where's gary when you need him? Eh?
Click to expand...


im bothered more for the fact that i can gain a bit of publicity for my website from the article published in the paper, my friend knows this and he will expressly point out that this is the case with the image use.

not really, the tag on the images states its usage for the particular gig preview, usage of the image for anything besides that is in breach of the conditions laid out to them.

then again lets face it, they are a profit making newspaper, they will have bigger higher power lawyers than we could ever get, so if it did come to that then they would almost certainly win anyway. im not too bothered, however im treating it as an experiment.

in no way have i signed copyright over to them, they havent paid me anything (money needs to change hands to transfer copyright, even if its a token amount) so they cannot sell my image through their picture desk (dont worry i will be testing this as well by attempting to buy my own image from them next week if it gets published).
 
whitewash said:
(money needs to change hands to transfer copyright, even if its a token amount)
Click to expand...


I don't think so Whitewash ! :shrug: I stand to be corrected too but cash is not an automatic or integral part of such a transaction ... unless of course you have expressly stated so in your T's & C's ... and then I withdraw my comments as applicable to your statement only ! :thinking:
 
ok perhaps cash changing hands was the proper wording, but copyright does not just change hands because they have a copy of the picture. infact its written within the image data that copyright is held by myself and is not transfered
 
Sorry, my fault, improper syntax!

License would probably have been a better term, whether it's a royalty free, licensed or protected license is something that you surely must've agreed with the paper when you and your friend supplied the images?

Or did you just stick the copyright notice in the iptc caption field and hoped they noticed it?


(sorry playing devils advocaat again!)
 
its in there, its also submitted with the images and the article that the pictures should only be used with proper creditting to the photog etc etc) and its in the IPTC tag

hope it gets noticed...? ignorance does not make it ok. just because i didnt notice the big sign saying "no access, private property" does not mean i was not trespassing, similarly just because they did not read the IPTC tag does not mean they are absolved from any guilt from using an image inproperly. obviosly high powered lawyers can bent these rules because lets face it nothing is ever absolutely watertight is it, theres holes everywhere!
 
Interesting thread. Arkady might be better placed to provide an answer for this.

You say they should read the IPTC tag - but similarly, is there no small print in the paper itself or on their website stating that when photographers submit their images (ie licence their images for the newspaper's use), they do so under certain conditions?
 
The point I was trying to illustrate is that what is in the IPTC caption fields may be irrelevant to a degree if you have no formal agreement with the paper over the usage of the image. Just bunging a load of stuff in the fields may not be sufficient to cover you!

If that's the case then it's hardly the papers fault. But as I said before, I'm not 100% on this, you'd need to ask someone who reguarly contributes to such publications.

Me? I certainly wouldn't pass any of my images over to a publisher without a formal written agreement stating clearly the terms of usage and contractual obligations of both parties.

I hope I'm wrong but I've got a feeling you may be being slightly naive about all this.
 
Catdaddy said:
Interesting thread. Arkady might be better placed to provide an answer for this.

You say they should read the IPTC tag - but similarly, is there no small print in the paper itself or on their website stating that when photographers submit their images (ie licence their images for the newspaper's use), they do so under certain conditions?
Click to expand...


more than likely because lets face it, its all about high paid lawyers, they'll have it sewn up tighter than a nats ass,


.hence why im not too bothered if it doesnt appear, my thinking is that i want my friends band to succeed, to succeed they need to get a fanbase, and to do that they need exposure, and an article about a bands gig is not going to be noticed by as many people if it comes with a picture. so they win on that, ill still have a picture in the paper to add to my cuttings file, the newspaper will not sell any extra copies of the paper on the fact my picture is in there so they aint actually profitting - (i'll simply go to the local paper shop on saturday night and get a copy of it for free minus the front page which will be sent back to the distributers). so no one apart from me or the band will actually gain anything from this anyway. i can only hope that the picture editor pays attention and i actually get what ive asked for, otherwise, no harm done really is there :thinking: :clap:


and obviously when the band get famous and make millions of pounds, they'll pay me to go on tour with them as a photographer and ill get first pick of the groupies etc etc :bonk:


im sure i am being naive, im not a lawyer, i have no experience in law, i mearly take pictures, i just work on the fact that we should all play fair, sadly that is never usually the case especially with newspapers etc.
 
No harm done, but poor behaviour on their part...aint that just typical.

The way I see it; and I’ve dealt with some motorcycle magazines over the years in respect to having my photos published; they should be well up on the law, no excuse really, I’m sure they deal with freelance photographers all day long.

In my meagre freelance experience I believe its standard knowledge with all the editors and staff that I dealt with, that the copyright remains with the taker of the photograph unless a contract or agreement has been drawn to specifically pass over copyright...if you didn't have that chat, you still have the copyright…. I was never asked for the copyright. (Probably because my pickys where poo)

Its also standard knowledge that the photographer must be named somewhere in the magazine for his contribution, a pro may asks for his name to appear on or next to the image itself, this is also standard procedure.

If they wanted to use any of my images or articles again or if they had another buyer...the standard approach was to ring me up and ask.

At least thats the way I rememeber it. Things may have changed in recent years I guess. :(
 
My housemate wagered with me that Schumacher will not win a single race this year. Obviously this was before Schumacher won any race.

The wager was a lamb shank hot pot which I'll get getting some time next week. :)

Other than that, I only really gamble when it's Chinese New Year with friends and family. Visiting the Casino is not really my thing and I only go to one with my dad. Spend a bit of quality father and son time. haha.
 
Nope - once lost the equivalent two years' salary on a poker game and almost got my knees busted by the Corsican Mafia as a result. Only just managed to borrow enough to cover the first payment and then managed to win back enough to clear the debt a week later. Worst three weeks of my life!
Don't gamble any more, not even for a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top