Old images taken with a compact being used without permission (Copyright Again Sorry)

Llama said:
would they have a choice, if i said i wouldn't have sold that for less than £400
surely they'd have to pay £400???
Click to expand...

Yes they would have a choice! If you could justify the cost? perhaps you may get the £400....... However, If you had never sold a shot before then you would be struggling if they chose to challenge the cost.
 
Llama said:
yea its a fair point, might be worth paying up though instead of paying legal fees plus the bad reputation
Click to expand...

Indeed! but profiteering would also be very seriously frowned upon! should it come to court ....
 
Splog said:
Indeed! but profiteering would also be very seriously frowned upon! should it come to court ....
Click to expand...

who says it is profiteering?

that doubling of the rate is for the time and effort spent sending emails and chasing up, the time spent trawling the internet finding your stolen photos to recoup what is rightfully yours, the cost of taking a day off work to go to the CAB

there are a multitude of expenses you could claim that doubling was legitimately required for
 
Double the fee includes a 100% penalty for unauthorised use. That is a very cheap option for these companies.
 
Does it make any difference to the fee if the 'stolen' image on their website has your watermark all over it?
 
It's still cheaper to pay double rates if you're only having to pay them on the 1/3rd of the shots your using that have been found and identified by the photographer.. ..
 
This is a very interesting read. I had Heineken in Ireland use some of my gig images to promote the Oxegen music festival, back in 2008.

Their Website showed thumbnails taken from Flickr of the various bands that were going to be playing and in total, 16 of my images were displayed. Below is a screen capture of their site before it was taken down.


Delays 07 by Al de Man, on Flickr


_MG_6516 by Al de Man, on Flickr

When it was first noticed, someone went about informing all the photographers on Flickr whose photos had been used and then contacted Heineken in Ireland. We used a no-win, no-fee IP specialist to make a joint claim since there were photographers from all around the World affected. Heineken stalled, initially offering €15 per image to make us go away, claiming it was only temporary so didn't really count, blamed the Web designers, threatened to take action for defamation, then used jurisdiction to try a get out of it. After a couple of months, the momentum just fizzled out because the IP firm acting on our behalf said they would have to pay an agent to take action against Heineken in the Irish courts.
 
I had an international choc bar maker use one of my images on a website - they paid a large amount of money instantly and took the entire website down. I'd guess all the pics on it had been sourced from around the web.
 
awp said:
I had an international choc bar maker use one of my images on a website - they paid a large amount of money instantly and took the entire website down. I'd guess all the pics on it had been sourced from around the web.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that rather depend on where they nicked it from though, Andrew?

I'd imagine that a company would put up a far more robust front if they'd scraped a photograph off Flickr, than if they'd done so from someone's personal website, or even managed to get around the image protection on a stock site like Alamy.
 
This one they nicked from a clients website. I don't put my stuff anywhere nest Flickr.
 
Interesting to see some of the recent comments. You have no right to charge double rates for unauthorised use or to impose any "penalty". Of course if the company are willing to pay that then good luck to you. The only downside of this is that if you went to a small claims court and were shown to be charging double you might look unreasonable and lose some sympathy (theoretically at least it could affect the position regarding the expenses of the action).

The issue of whether your image is watermarked or not is irrelevant to ownership of the material. From an evidential point of view though, the existence of a watermark or assertion of copyright would be pretty damning for the unauthorised user.

Alistair
 
Who says we have no right to charge whatever for unauthorised use? NUJ recommend charging 'at least double' for unauthorised use. Charging a penalty is easily justifiable if it went to court. These companies know they are in the wrong and when they are caught they can't risk the bad publicity from going to court and usually pay up fairly quickly..
 
awp said:
Who says we have no right to charge whatever for unauthorised use? NUJ recommend charging 'at least double' for unauthorised use. Charging a penalty is easily justifiable if it went to court. These companies know they are in the wrong and when they are caught they can't risk the bad publicity from going to court and usually pay up fairly quickly..
Click to expand...

How could you justify to a court charging double?
 
Splog said:
How could you justify to a court charging double?
Click to expand...

If it's the accepted industry standard for unauthorised use, otherwise where is the deterrent.

For instance, company A wants to use an image of yours, if they go by the book and pay upfront they get charged x amount. If they just use it and hope you don't notice it costs them nothing. If you do notice and they still pay the same amount as if they had asked, why ask in the first place?

Paul.
 
PaulF said:
If it's the accepted industry standard for unauthorised use, otherwise where is the deterrent.


Paul.
Click to expand...

'Industry standard' ......? Hardly answers the question does it! ...... Since when did photographers have a legal right to fine someone?
 
Splog said:
'Industry standard' ......? Hardly answers the question does it! ...... Since when did photographers have a legal right to fine someone?
Click to expand...

If a business owes you money, you are entitle to charge them interest on any late payments. Why is this any different?
At the end of the day as a photographer you are the creator or art. As an artist you should be able to sell your artwork for whatever price you choose. It's not for the courts to decide what your photo is worth, but obviously be sensible.

Charging somebody double the going rate is not regarded as a "fine".
 
ecoleman said:
If a business owes you money, you are entitle to charge them interest on any late payments. Why is this any different?.
Click to expand...

No you aren't! ... not without some very clever written agreement.
 
Splog said:
Irrelevant! ..... I refer you to my question.
Click to expand...

as previously stated - time spent trawling the internet to find the copied picture, time taken to contact and try to get them to pay up in the first place... there are plenty of ways you can easily rack it up - but the bottom line is once they've taken the image you charge them the going rate, and the going rate is doubled for unauthorised use as suggested by the NUJ
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
as previously stated - time spent trawling the internet to find the copied picture, time taken to contact and try to get them to pay up in the first place... there are plenty of ways you can easily rack it up - but the bottom line is once they've taken the image you charge them the going rate, and the going rate is doubled for unauthorised use as suggested by the NUJ
Click to expand...

You may be able to claim expenses (however I doubt claiming time for trawling the internet would qualify) but you can't claim double charge.

The NUJ have absolute zero authority in anything.
 
Last edited:
Splog said:
You may be able to claim expenses (however I doubt claiming time for trawling the internet would qualify) but you can't claim double charge.

The NUJ have absolute zero authority in anything.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has said the NUJ have authority, only a set of guidelines

Without these you could charge whatever you want and forget the need to double it
 
Splog - as a self confessed "Workshy layabout" - can you explain why you are qualified to have any opinion on this matter - let alone a pseudo legal one?
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
I don't think anyone has said the NUJ have authority, only a set of guidelines

Without these you could charge whatever you want and forget the need to double it
Click to expand...


Yes, you could charge what you like :) .... but we're talking about going to court for someone who has nicked a photo and then charging double the usual price! ... So is that double the double price or just double the normal price ;)
 
Last edited:
Splog said:
Yes, you could charge what you like :) .... but we're talking about going to court for someone who has nicked a photo and then charging double the usual price! ... So is that double the double price or just double the normal price ;)
Click to expand...

for you to acknowledge a 'usual' price you must acknowledge the NJU guidelines which recommend doubling for unauthorised use.

without some kind of penalty for unauthorised use everyone will try to get away with it as they can only get caught for the original payment and anytime they get away with it it is pure profit
 
awp said:
Splog - as a self confessed "Workshy layabout" - can you explain why you are qualified to have any opinion on this matter - let alone a pseudo legal one?
Click to expand...

:LOL: .... I never said I was qualified for a legal opinion! ........ Just a bit of common sense... try it! ..... BTW are you suggesting that because I don't agree with you I'm not entitled to an opinion? Anyway, it's fun :D

Oh! and by the way you have failed to answer how you would justify to a court your reasons for charging double :thinking:
 
Going to court is rarely an option for the thief. Why would they want to? I've never had a case go anywhere near a court. All this court talk is a red herring.
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
without some kind of penalty for unauthorised use everyone will try to get away with it as they can only get caught for the original payment and anytime they get away with it it is pure profit
Click to expand...

Except for going to court and paying the costs. That's the deterrent, not some togger thinking they can impose fines. It's a civil matter only.
 
Splog said:
No you aren't! ... not without some very clever written agreement.
Click to expand...

Actually you can.

On any Invoice sent that is not paid within 30 days of invoice, (providing you haven't agreed a longer payment period) you can charge a late payment fee. There is a set fee depending on the original amount of the invoice plus interest at 8% above Bank of England base rate. The base rate for this is set every 6 months.
This was put in place to protect small businesses against larger companys withholding payment.

There is more info about this on the business link website.
 
awp said:
Who says we have no right to charge whatever for unauthorised use? NUJ recommend charging 'at least double' for unauthorised use. Charging a penalty is easily justifiable if it went to court. These companies know they are in the wrong and when they are caught they can't risk the bad publicity from going to court and usually pay up fairly quickly..
Click to expand...

awp said:
Double the fee includes a 100% penalty for unauthorised use. That is a very cheap option for these companies.
Click to expand...

awp said:
I've found it works - they get the invoice - they pay - they usually can't afford to let it go further. You may need a covering letter explaining that if you don't get paid in 30 days or whatever then further action will be taken. I can honestly say I've had a 100% success rate in cases like this.
Click to expand...

awp said:
Going to court is rarely an option for the thief. Why would they want to? I've never had a case go anywhere near a court. All this court talk is a red herring.
Click to expand...


Have you forgotten what you said previously? :thinking: ...... Hence my question:

How could you justify to a court charging double?
Click to expand...
 
Splog said:
Have you forgotten what you said previously? :thinking: ...... Hence my question:
Click to expand...

I think the comment about industry standard would probably stand up,
there not going to be specialists in photography copyright, if thats what is suggested (and common practise) then it would probably be excepted

but as awp said, why would you not pay (unless it was excessive) bringing it to court knowing your wrong would just be stupid

Jack (y)
 
Llama said:
I think the comment about industry standard would probably stand up,
there not going to be specialists in photography copyright, if thats what is suggested (and common practise) then it would probably be excepted

but as awp said, why would you not pay (unless it was excessive) bringing it to court knowing your wrong would just be stupid

Jack (y)
Click to expand...

It's not an industry standard it's b****x!

Here's the question again...... :shrug:

How could you justify to a court charging double?
Click to expand...
 
Here's the question again...... :shrug:
Click to expand...

seem as you seem to be just repeating your question and discounting answers and skipping over the points that challenge your argument ill re-echo something that was said

awp said:
Going to court is rarely an option for the thief. Why would they want to? I've never had a case go anywhere near a court. All this court talk is a red herring.
Click to expand...

so that sort of renders your question the pointless one, regardless of peoples answers

Jack (y)(y)(y)
 
Llama said:
seem as you seem to be just repeating your question and discounting answers and skipping over the points that challenge your argument ill re-echo something that was said



so that sort of renders your question the pointless one, regardless of peoples answers

Jack (y)(y)(y)
Click to expand...


Perhaps I've missed an answer then, so share a link.... :thinking:

Seeing as nobody has actually answered the question, your post is trolling at best :shrug:
 
AWP and Splog, I am greatly impressed by your enthusiasm and your energy, but trust me on this - you have no legal right to charge double the going rate.

You can chance your arm and try it and if you get paid it, great. If you go to court though looking for double it's value and saying that's because you've added a penalty, you'll risk looking foolish and unreasonable.

Alistair. (a lawyer)
 
Splog said:
It's not an industry standard it's b****x!

Here's the question again...... :shrug:
Click to expand...

How can the music companies justify charging individuals large fines sometimes into thousands for Unauthorised Use or a film or music track they can purchase for £9.99 at HMV?

Theirs no such thing as industry standard in this case. It's their to act as a deterrent. If you don't pay the rail fare on a train and all you get charged is the fare then as someone pointed out why would you pay?

I doubt a court would frown over charging twice for unauthorised use as long as the cost isn't overly exaggerated. going in and saying you want £x000 might be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top