Me -v- Urban Outfitters

A

AlistairW

Messages
81
Name
Alistair
Edit My Images
Yes
Imagine my surprise on doing a "vanity" google of my own name to find one of my images being used on the Urban Outfitters site. For a few minutes I was surprised and flattered (since I'm not that great a photographer). Then I started thinking about the fact that a couple of my friends are trying to make a living from photography and are being deprived of work.

Then - when I read their site's declaration that all images on the webpage are their copyright or used under licence by them I nearly fell off my chair. As you might have guessed this image came from my flickr page and that page clearly declared my copyright.

I emailed them twice about this pointing out the issue and asking them to rectify the problem by removing the image or by paying for a licence (and even said I'd be happy with a suitable donation to the RNLI as I'm not looking for personal profit).

They have just blanked me - and are still using my image - and still declaring their rights over it! I'm going to send them a recorded delivery in the next 24 hours. Their arrogance here though is such that if they continue I'm going to raise an action against them in my local small claims court.

Here's my question though. How much is the use for web purposes of a relatively small (maybe 200pixels across) image worth. I don't know when they started using it - it could be any time in the last year I'd guess.

Any thoughts?

Alistair
 
At this point I would remove the name of the retailer from your post, just in case.
Sorry I can't offer any advice ref how much it's worth

L
 
Not sure how realistic these are, but there's the NUJ list of advised fees here.

I say good on you, tkae them through the court. They're a business, so why should they get work for free when smaller, local businesses do the honest thing and pay?

Let us know how it turns out.
 
Why not go to the Alamy web site, and use their price calculator to come up with a price.
 
you could try contacting there host and telling them of the copyright infringement.
 
Annoyingly, there's a fairly famous american footballer who was killed called sean taylor, but searching 'sean taylor photography' yields the 6th result. Not bad!

Anyway, definitely go to the Alamy website, use their price calculator, and then add on an extra 10%.

Don't be afraid to go high. They'll either remove it, or they'll pay up. And they're a big company who would prefer not to have a lawsuit so they'll probably pay up.

Print screen the page.
 
Make sure you take an archive copy of their site (esp the page using your image), and also make sure you address your letter to their legal department, and state that you require that either they remit £xxx for the purchase of a licence, or cease and desist from using your copyrighted image.

BTW - you do not have to base your request for a fee on anything - just choose a figure - you are entitled to value your work at whatever you like.

Settlements for breach of copyright can be VERY large ;)
 
if you word it as your charging them £xxx for usage up till now, and £xxx for usage after, then you can claim some money off them even if they take it down:)

(check for legality of that though)
 
may aswel see it through and earn a bit of cash, might buy you a few new bits and bobs. Its a big company so they should pay! Good luck!
 
I'd go with the NUJ Guidelines - a judge will be more likely to entertain their figures than a commercial body like Alamy.

I'm interested to see where this goes - good luck to you
 
Who knows how many other togs are being used in this way? Pretty shocking a large retailer like that thinks it can just do what it likes and then claim copywright over someone elses work.
 
AlistairW said:
I don't know when they started using it - it could be any time in the last year I'd guess.
Click to expand...

If it went to courrt, could the court not demand the date the image was uploaded to their server? I think it's only right they pay for the usage they've already had, and then pay your court fees too.
 
It would be partially forgiveable if they were using an image from Flickr that was creative commons licensed but to use one where it specifically states all rights reserved it is pretty bad, they will have known that they were using a copy-written image but still chose to use it! :@
 
Thank everyone for the good advice - I hadn't thought of downloading the page/ taking a screenshot - but I have now done that.

You links should allow me to get a handle on the figure here - I do mean it though that if I get anything it's going to charity. I'm not wanting to profit.

Interesting point about whether I should name them in this thread, but I'm not worried about that and I don't think any additional hits are of the type that they'd find pleasing.

Finally, I don't have any qualms about raising a small claims action if I have to, so I'll let you all know how this develops.

Thanks
Alistair
 
Good luck with this and let us know how it pans out, but I feel you might be on a hiding to nothing. As copyright is a civil matter and the usage fee would probably be small, your course of redress would be the Small Claims Court. This subject was dealt with on Radio Manchester's Alan Beswick show some time back and the advice was that if the amount you were claiming was less than £200 forget it because it would cost you that to take it to Court, and if they did rule in your favour you then have to get the money off them which is easier said than done. That said, as previously Good Luck and let us know the outcome.

Cheers Paul
 
No - if I have to go to the small claims court then so be it. You are right that for a few hundred pounds the expenses if any awarded would be peanuts, but that's not really the point. I don't intend to instruct a solicitor but to do it myself - it is a straightforward procedure.

All it will cost me is my time. A limited company on the other hand must pay for external lawyers. They will have to instruct local Scottish solicitors, and OU will have to pay for their time. In the unlikely event that the case went all the way to proof, they would also have to arrange for employees and possibly people from the design company to attend as witnesses, for a case they'd expect to lose.

I'm actually pretty relaxed about the prospect.
 
I suppose the main factor in your favour is that adverse publicity it will cause a large company and they would surely want it settled way before any mention of a court case, whereas some dodgy builder wouldn't give a toss and just claim he had no money until you got sick of it and gave up. Good Luuck anyway.

Cheers Paul
 
AlistairW said:
No - if I have to go to the small claims court then so be it. You are right that for a few hundred pounds the expenses if any awarded would be peanuts, but that's not really the point. I don't intend to instruct a solicitor but to do it myself - it is a straightforward procedure.

All it will cost me is my time. A limited company on the other hand must pay for external lawyers. They will have to instruct local Scottish solicitors, and OU will have to pay for their time. In the unlikely event that the case went all the way to proof, they would also have to arrange for employees and possibly people from the design company to attend as witnesses, for a case they'd expect to lose.

I'm actually pretty relaxed about the prospect.
Click to expand...

If you win your case you should be able to claim back any expenses accrued in bringing the case on top of any money awarded for the misuse of your picture
 
You can, Yes, but in practice it's not always that easy and you could end up throwing good money after bad. It's sometimes a case of trying to get blood out of a stone.
 
In fairness Jerry, I'm not name-calling here. While I'm pretty hacked off about it, and about the lack of response to emails, they probably pay through the nose to a web design company. If I was in the marketing dept of UO and found that the company we'd employed were just taking other people's images, I might be somewhat annoyed with them myself.

The interesting thing will be how UO deal with it now. Anyway, a recorded delivery letter has just been sent by me.
 
Sounds like you've got them bang to rights, so nothing to lose, except your time. If you cost your time at £100 an hour or something then it's probably not worth pursuing, but that's not the point. On the other hand, that is what they will be paying just to get legal advice :D

I wonder how things like this happen and TBH I'm a bit suspicious that aparently respectable companies should do this sort of thing deliberately and knowlingly, and then ignore all communication.

Perhaps they've hired a web design company that has put it all together, pinching whatever they need from wherever they can get it free and easy, then copping a fee from the client and disappearing. The design company probably put the copyright disclaimer on, and whoever you are sending emails to just has no idea what you are talking about or that it is even vaguely serious.

If you want to rub it in, is there anyway you could trace and alert the authors of any other images on there? You will probably all be in the same boat.
 
If you lift a photo from flickr and post it on a website what are the chances that the owner of the copyright isgoing to see and recognise it? Very slim I would say so these people who have put it on the website must consider it worth a punt. Tineye is a great idea in theory but totally useless in practice. I've tried it with photos of mine that I know are on other sites and nothing comes back from the searches.
 
Judging from the number of flickr photos that seem to be turning up on website maybe flickr need to take action themselves, after all the pro members are paying them.
 
An update on my dispute - UO got in touch once they got my recorded delivery "7 day" letter. The person dealing with it at their end was appropriately (albeit belatedly) apologetic. They have removed all images from the page concerned. They say the picture was on their site for a month (I can't prove otherwise) and they have agreed to pay me £300 by way of compensation.

Interestingly, the woman I spoke to told me that they do the site themselves and don't use an external agency.

Thanks for the helpful posts - which allowed me to have some kind of basis for a negotiation figure.

Alistair

PS - I'm giving the proceeds to the RNLI. This was never about me getting a profit personally, rather about, in a small way, standing up for myself and for others who are trying to make a living from photography.
 
AlistairW said:
An update on my dispute - UO got in touch once they got my recorded delivery "7 day" letter. The person dealing with it at their end was appropriately (albeit belatedly) apologetic. They have removed all images from the page concerned. They say the picture was on their site for a month (I can't prove otherwise) and they have agreed to pay me £300 by way of compensation.

Interestingly, the woman I spoke to told me that they do the site themselves and don't use an external agency.

Thanks for the helpful posts - which allowed me to have some kind of basis for a negotiation figure.

Alistair

PS - I'm giving the proceeds to the RNLI. This was never about me getting a profit personally, rather about, in a small way, standing up for myself and for others who are trying to make a living from photography.
Click to expand...

Ah well done! That's a result and I'm sure the RNLI will be most chuffed to boot.
 
Well done, and the money is going to a very deserving cause too. Did they offer any explanation as to why or how they came to use the image without permission?
 
WHy not ask them to make the donation to RNLI direct, but add on 20% (or whatever tax rate they pay) to get more for the charity...and then ask them for work. If they liked one photo that much, you can produce more...........................

Well done BTW
 
Funnily enough Lawrie I did actually ask her to make the cheque payable to the RNLI rather than me (I didn't want to bow to temptation when it arrives - this tells you all you need about my flawed character). I didn't think of trying to bump them up further on that basis though.

As to why they were taking images off flickr, I don't know. I didn't press her on it although I had the feeling from what she was saying (she was "head of people" or something) that there may have been some internal flack flying over it.

Anyway, it seems to have worked out alright in the end.

Alistair
 
Nice to see that they coughed to it without you having to issue proceedings.

Don't forget to Gift Aid the £300 to the RNLI! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top