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

AlistairW said:
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)
Click to expand...


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the-real-cost-of-being-sued-by-getty


Something almost identical happened to a friend of mine as well. It cost the web design company in excess of £2000.
 
AlistairW said:
Unplugged - I take it you are also legally qualified then?
Click to expand...

Nope but im guessing your not either. Im willing however to see YOUR certification in both copyright and civil law and be corrected. You seem to be taking real pleasure in trolling everyone and making wide claims they they have "no right" to Fine people for breach of copyright backing up your claim with the same argument.

Copyright Infringement despite what they tell you is a Civil Matter (not as a lot of films will have you beleave a Criminal Offence) this is exactly the same as every other civil matter, jumping the train, parking tickets I can go on if you like.

No im not a civil lawyer however fines are imposed on pretty much most civil cased along with and including penalties for late and non payment. You can "sue" the other party for technically any amount you want, £10, £50, £8000, £100000 if you so wish. It's up to the court to decide if your claim is valid. If it's a reasonable cost (court costs, time, research, fine as deterrent) then the court will normally side with the copyright holder. If it was that easy to get out of a claim then nobody would bother obtaining copyright permission and would certainly never pay an invoice as they could just pay the going rate in court. Hell I could pirate all my music and if I get caught in say 1 in every 2000 mp3s I figure that's £2000 saved and as a bonus I only get sued for £1 for every one I actually get busted for. Seems like a bargain to me.


Im willing to see the results for a couple of controlled experiments though

How about you copy a CD take it down to the F.A.C.T office or better still write to them and admit full blame and liability with your address, full name and copy of the CD. Try arguing in court "you have no right to fine me more than the going rate for the cd" and see how that one turns out for you.

Or park your car in middle of Camden and then write to Camden County Council and tell them your only paying the cost and they have "No legal right" to fine you the £40 or £80 or whatever the exterortionate amount is now. Im pretty sure our office has tried most excuses now on behalf or Engineers. Please forward me your name I would love to add a footnote to the letter saying "My legal expert <your name here> has reliably informed me that charging a fine on a civil case is illegal so I enclose the 1 hours parking of £3.00 that I didn't pay"

Please let me know how you get on ;)
 
Last edited:
AlistairW said:
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)
Click to expand...

Isn't that what i was saying?
 
How could you justify to a court charging double?
Click to expand...

In the same way that.

1. The council can fine you £80 for not paying £1.50 for parking.
2. The same way that wheel clampers can charge you £100 for removing a clamp on private property (sometimes even more)
3. The same way that software developers can impose fines for copyright infringement (Do you think somebody like MS is going to say "Naughty boy, you copied Windows 7. That'll be £120 please")
4. Similar to above in the music, film and gaming industry.
5. In the same way that celebs can sue a newspaper for 100's of thousands of pounds because somebody stole their voice mail.

I won't go on, because actually you haven't really come up with any argument against any of the comments made here other than untrue ones.
 
Last edited:
Splog said:
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:
Click to expand...

i think saying its trolling is hardly fair, i was trying to point out that firstly, just repeating a question comes cross as quite childish

secondly i know the answers 42, makes no difference though if i don't now the question though, if the question is less than best aimed at the situation then the answers you will get might not be appropriate to the situation, if yur asking how would it stand up in court, but almost zero cases end up in court the question becomes irrelevant does it not???

anyway iv had a think about you're original question anyway and although i cant give a valid legal explanation i can give an example in a high profile case were this style of costing has been in place

Metalica started suing individuls for millions of pounds downloading there music (slightly over the 100% increase we were talking about :LOL:) and they got away with it, i dunno what the layer said but it seemed to stand ground, guessing somthing similar could easly be applied to photography (y)(y)(y)

Jack
 
I wish the original poster well. Unplugged chooses to throw insults at me and give out advice apparently based on some kind of hunch. I do not wish to engage further in personal exchanges of that type.

I have at various points in this thread given advice which is legally accurate, and I would hope helpful, to the original poster and to others wondering how to pursue such a claim.

I have taken time to post responses because I have expertise that I can offer to others based on being a lawyer and having spent every working day for many years in the courts. Why this is questioned by Unplugged I don't know. In any event all I have offered is assistance and it is open to anyone who thinks they know better to ignore my advice. That is your right.

I would however suggest that while it is great to be supportive of a photographer who has a dispute like this, we should all be a bit cautious about posting views based on what you would like the legal position to be rather than what it actually is.

Alistair
 
AlistairW said:
I wish the original poster well. Unplugged chooses to throw insults at me and give out advice apparently based on some kind of hunch. I do not wish to engage further in personal exchanges of that type.

I have at various points in this thread given advice which is legally accurate, and I would hope helpful, to the original poster and to others wondering how to pursue such a claim.

I have taken time to post responses because I have expertise that I can offer to others based on being a lawyer and having spent every working day for many years in the courts. Why this is questioned by Unplugged I don't know. In any event all I have offered is assistance and it is open to anyone who thinks they know better to ignore my advice. That is your right.

I would however suggest that while it is great to be supportive of a photographer who has a dispute like this, we should all be a bit cautious about posting views based on what you would like the legal position to be rather than what it actually is.

Alistair
Click to expand...

There's absolutely no point in getting in a huff because you've been proved wrong.

You seem to forget that you are in a different country.
 
Demilion says I'm proved wrong. I hadn't intended to post again but really, while the actions of Getty in the case you referred to appear awful there are many many differences in fact and circumstances from the present issue.

Anyway, as I said it is everyone's right to ignore any advice I've given or to feel they know better.

Alistair
 
awp said:
Not from me he's not.
Click to expand...

Nor me, Why are some people getting hung up on this "charge them double", its the togs decision what they wish to charge for use of a photo, if that happens to be double the NUJ rates then so be it, if he would be prepared to discount it for usage that was authorised then thats fine too.
Theres plenty of ways to justify what you charge for unauthorised use, a little thinking outside the box is all that is needed to justify it.
 
AlistairW said:
Demilion says I'm proved wrong. I hadn't intended to post again but really, while the actions of Getty in the case you referred to appear awful there are many many differences in fact and circumstances from the present issue.

Anyway, as I said it is everyone's right to ignore any advice I've given or to feel they know better.

Alistair
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm being daft, but I don't really see too many basic differences between the Getty case and this one. Someone is using an image without purchasing the license for it first. The owner of the image finds out, and sends a bill through for the image rights. In the Getty case, the bill was about 10 times the value of the photo. If it's as unlawful as you suggest for someone to do that, why was the company in the Getty case forced to settle out of court. If you, with your legal knowledge can say that, why did no other lawyer say the same thing to that company?
 
That's the whole point Dave.

In this case the company in question tried to dodge the issue by paying a non specialist lawyer £165 to make the case go away. It didn't and it ended up costing a few thousand in legal fees on top of the usage charge....

...Whoops!

It's a question of clout though. If you have deep pockets and plenty of patience then it's worth pursuing the legal route. My earlier caveats were based on the Daily Mail's established reputation for either not paying out or when they do only paying a day/publication rate.
 
AlistairW said:
I wish the original poster well. Unplugged chooses to throw insults at me and give out advice apparently based on some kind of hunch. I do not wish to engage further in personal exchanges of that type.
Click to expand...

At what point did I insult you? My post was sarcastic yet..... Insulting no.

You have jumped on me and others making snide remarks such as "I suppose your a legal expert too".

I simply pointed out (yes in a long winded way) that Fines in Civil Cases are well shown across a wide range or civil cases. Copyright theft is copyright theft and theirs plenty of cases for courts giving out large "fines" to people for breaking them.

Their are plenty of legal specialists who are experts in copyright cases and im pretty sure their wouldn't be if their was no financial incentive in fighting these cases.

AlistairW said:
I have taken time to post responses because I have expertise that I can offer to others based on being a lawyer and having spent every working day for many years in the courts.....
Click to expand...

Were all trying to be helpful. You actually jumped on me within what 5 mins of entering this thread? Again not an insult but this in the Internet and I can claim to be a high judge of the old bailey. Asking for legal advice on a forum is about as good an idea as asking for health advice. You take the advice and roll with what you feel best or you sort it out professionally/legally.

AlistairW said:
Many people have also posted in the affirmative that they have pursued and won cases like this. Were all offering advice but like all online advice your best off seeking legal advice. You

I would however suggest that while it is great to be supportive of a photographer who has a dispute like this, we should all be a bit cautious about posting views based on what you would like the legal position to be rather than what it actually is.
Click to expand...

Most Defiantly.

Everyone is trying to be supportive. The court will at the end of the day balance up a reasonable compensation request. Time spent pursuing, legal costs, profits made from the theft of said photos. Original cost etc. Their will always be a "fine" buried in this at some level even if you pay yourself £20 an hour for persuing monies owed etc.
 
Well the cheque turned up today, £780 for a small image used in online editorial for 12 months (double NUJ rates). They (won't name them) have since swapped out my image for another one so I couldn't offer them a multiple year discount! If they had asked they could have kept on using it but I think they changed it hoping I wouldn't be so persistent in chasing them. I already had all the screenshots required! On a related note it would appear google is launching a comparable service to Tin Eye (whoops there goes someone else's business model!) so it it should get easier to track copyrighted images.
 
Boich said:
Well the cheque turned up today, £780 for a small image used in online editorial for 12 months (double NUJ rates). They (won't name them) have since swapped out my image for another one so I couldn't offer them a multiple year discount! If they had asked they could have kept on using it but I think they changed it hoping I wouldn't be so persistent in chasing them. I already had all the screenshots required! On a related note it would appear google is launching a comparable service to Tin Eye (whoops there goes someone else's business model!) so it it should get easier to track copyrighted images.
Click to expand...

Well done, I've been following this thread with interest, it's great to see that they have paid up :)

Matt
MWHCVT
 
Glad to see you finally got paid, the thread has derailed a bit nice to get back to the original topic.
 
Boich said:
Well the cheque turned up today, £780 for a small image used in online editorial for 12 months (double NUJ rates). They (won't name them) have since swapped out my image for another one so I couldn't offer them a multiple year discount! If they had asked they could have kept on using it but I think they changed it hoping I wouldn't be so persistent in chasing them. I already had all the screenshots required! On a related note it would appear google is launching a comparable service to Tin Eye (whoops there goes someone else's business model!) so it it should get easier to track copyrighted images.
Click to expand...

Well done. I hope I get some success. A letter has been sent out to one of the offenders. I now need to send out letters to the other 2.

Apart from the one reply I had I've not had any other correspondence since from all 3!!
 
I did find they ignored my invoice until I got on the phone and made it clear I was prepared to go legal. I was then told it would be paid. Another 2 weeks went by so I chased the accounts dept again and 2 days later it turned up. Now I don't know if it just took them all that time to process it or whether the extra chase was required but you need to keep on top of it! Good luck.
 
It's taken time but I got a reply from a second email for one of the other sites....

Hi Simon

You had no reply previously as used an incorrect email address for me, and my colleague Paul has been away.

Bear with us and we would like to fully establish the facts around the photo before giving you a full response.

Kind regards

.......

So we shall see if anything comes from this one as well.
 
Hmmm now i'm curious. Thanks to the new Google image sreach tool. I have found the image on 1 German, 1 Russian and an Estonian website.

What do you think the chances of anything from them? I'm guessing it will be a bit more difficult if at all possible.
 
Last edited:
SimonBalaam said:
Hmmm now i'm curious. Thanks to the new Google image sreach tool. I have found the image on 1 German, 1 Russian and an Estonian website.

What do you think the chances of anything from them? I'm guessing it will be a bit more difficult if at all possible.
Click to expand...

I am interested inn this Google tool...it doesn't work for me at all, even with pictures I know are on websites...

...sounds promising for you, however, so I hope it goes well.
 
ditto - I've serached for images I know are on the web - and it won't find them! Tin-eye was crap at that too for me.
 
Well its progressing (slowly). I just got this response from another one of the sites I found the photo on and got this...

"Hi Simon

Apologies for the delay. It&#8217;s been difficult for us to establish the full facts around the use of this picture as the writer of the online article is no longer with us, and this picture doesn&#8217;t lie on our files.

It&#8217;s also difficult for me to understand why you waited two and a half years and until the original website went down to bring this to our attention.

In light of the above, and as a gesture of good faith, I invite you to submit an invoice to us for the standard figure that we would pay for use of a web image &#8211; the price we would pay to PA and other photo agencies. That&#8217;s £55.

If you put that through, I&#8217;ll ensure it is paid swiftly."

Now what would you do?

Thanks

Simon
 
I obviously took a little time to establish it was definatly my photo so that I wasn't putting in a false claim and in that time and me sending in an invoice they changed there web page.
 
After reading this thread I did a search using Google images and found a couple of sites with some of my images on.
The photos on the site are thumbnails and when you click on them they link to my Flickr page.
Heres a link to one of the site have a look.

http://www.brauntonhotels.com/pictures.htm

5 of the images here are mine can they do this without asking?
 
Finally got a response from the Daily Mail. Going to call them today. Need to make sure I know what I'm gonna say as I'm very good at getting Tongue tied, ha ha
 
jerry12953 said:
I haven't read through the whole thread, but the Daily Fail is a well-known and habitual user of images stolen from other websites and used without permission, credit or payment.

Don't agree to anything until you have taken professional advice. (or is it too late.....)

try www.own-it.org (FoC)
Click to expand...

The same Daily Fail is not commenting on the 'phone-hacking scandal because...
 
Right update time!!

It's taken a lot of time and a lot of emails to and from several people. I may not have got huge amounts of money but I have had success with 2 of the 3 websites that stole my image.

I got a nice cheque today from the mail and hope to get another one next week from the other website.

It took time though and felt like they only took me seriously when legal action was threatened. The one that has not paid up turns out to be a one man band who sets up websites then disappears behind an un manned po box in London. I have no real details about him apart from an email address.

Hey I'm happy I got a result and would like to thank the people on here for all their help

Thanks

Simon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top