Publishing without permission or credit.

D

DanCanon

Messages
8
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
No
Hi everybody,

I'm new to this forum and thought I would get some clear answers from you guys.

Last year I photographed somebody without having them sign a model release form, I made this decision based on the fact that not only did I have no personal use for the images but I also know the subject personally. Today my image has been used in a newspaper, no credit towards me obviously.

Can I raise the question as to why I haven't been credited? Or because I didn't have the subject sign a model release form then newspaper can do as they wish with the it?

Thanks and I hope to hear from somebody soon.
 
oh - and i've moved this thread out of the photo sharing area BTW - this is a more appropriate location - where you originally posted it is for sharing images and getting/giving critique
 
Having a model release (rights waiver) or not has nothing to do with your copyrights (unless you waive some in it)... so no, a newspaper cannot "do as they wish."

You can ask why you haven't been credited; but it's probably about pointless... "credit" isn't worth much anyway.
If the image was used improperly (i.e. not fair use/dealing), it's quite likely because the subject provided the image w/o indicating that they do not have the right to do so (innocent infringement). Often such submissions have a TOU requirement that the submitter "verifies they are the owner of the image and have the rights to submit the image(s)"... or something to that effect.
In either event there's no real case even though the image may have been used improperly. Also such newspaper images don't often have a high value... and they are not going to do a reprint w/ credit. At best you might get something like 50£ and put your friend in a bind.
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin, the subjected would have given the newspaper the image as he has had an article about his music published.

Sk66. That's great information thank you. I know nothing would come from emailing the paper I just feel a little disheartened that I created that image and no thought for who was responsible was given at all. I thought naively that they would have asked for the image and who the photographer was to cover their backs maybe or just simply credit the photographer.

Sorry for posting in the wrong section I'm learning to navigate myself around this forum, thanks all for replying.
 
DanCanon said:
TheBigYin, the subjected would have given the newspaper the image as he has had an article about his music published.

Sk66. That's great information thank you. I know nothing would come from emailing the paper I just feel a little disheartened that I created that image and no thought for who was responsible was given at all. I thought naively that they would have asked for the image and who the photographer was to cover their backs maybe or just simply credit the photographer.

Sorry for posting in the wrong section I'm learning to navigate myself around this forum, thanks all for replying.
Click to expand...
That's why I watermark my images... or if I release an image for specific use w/o watermark the usage terms are very clear and in writing. I.e. the subject knows they cannot just give the image to a newspaper...

In the US (where I am) removal of a watermark is a violation of the DMCA 1998; in the EU/UK I would think it would be a violation of your moral rights... i.e. it's not something a newspaper would do (if they have any sense).
 
Last edited:
Sorry if I have read this wrong. Unless you specifically said to the model (& have a signed document to prove it) then as far as they are concerned you have waived copyright & so they can do what they like with it.
 
DanCanon said:
the subjected would have given the newspaper the image as he has had an article about his music published.
Click to expand...

I was expecting it to be that - right down to it being a musician that'd handed over the picture.

I do get rather annoyed that (and this is speaking as someone who's earned money as both a muso and a photographer) there are some musicians out there that cry and wail whenever their copyright material is distributed without payment, but think absolutely nothing of doing exactly the same with a photographers work.

Personally, in this case, I'd treat it as a learning experience (especially as the person involved seems to have been a friend/aquaintance) - and, as Steven mentioned, for next time, if you do something similar, get it in writing that you hold the copyright, and that if they wish to distribute the image to the press or elsewhere then there's a licence fee involved. And, if you do that - chase the buggers up on it.
 
Last edited:
Diving Pete said:
Sorry if I have read this wrong. Unless you specifically said to the model (& have a signed document to prove it) then as far as they are concerned you have waived copyright & so they can do what they like with it.
Click to expand...


eh? the photogrpaher has the copyright unless he signs it over..

To the OP ... credits are usless the paper should pay you.. doesn't matter who gave it to them... if its the subject then unless it looks like a selfie then the paper obviously know someone else took it... Theres nothing you can do about the credit and the only person interested in a credit is you and your family

Contact the paper and inform them its your picture and you would like paying.. BUT do it nicely :)
 
Diving Pete said:
Sorry if I have read this wrong. Unless you specifically said to the model (& have a signed document to prove it) then as far as they are concerned you have waived copyright & so they can do what they like with it.
Click to expand...

I may be mis-reading what you've typed but I think it's quite the opposite. Copyright resides with the photographer unless expressly waived, or transfered to the person commisioning the shoot (as described in the contract for the shoot). So - if you said nothing, it's still yours - of course, it'd be a bit of a dumb move NOT to mention that they'd not paid for the copyright and free distribution of the image, only for the shooting costs and a print that they can frame and hang on their wall, or look at at home, but not give or sell on to anyone else, because nobody in the world apart from photographers (and newspaper editors - though they pretend they don't know) seems to understand this.

Oh, and while I'm at it. Forget about "credit" - it's not worth the cost of the ink used to print it. Try spreading credit on a cracker and living on it for the next month. Sod that, get £££
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
I was expecting it to be that - right down to it being a musician that'd handed over the picture.
Click to expand...

This is what winds me up... If the person handing the picture to the paper is the person in the picture then surely the paper know they havent taken it?
 
I have always believed that unless it was "hire to shoot" and I was simply a photographer hired for an event etc then unless I have stated that the holder of the images ie the subject is the copyrighter and owner of said images then the photographs will always belong to me whether I had a model release form or not...I wrote an email to the paper on the off chance they take notice and maybe understand my issue with this.....

"To Whom It May Concern,

I have been contacted in regards to an image that I have created being used in your newspaper.

The image used is of Ali Gilbert, you have written a short story on his music.

The image was taken and created by myself. Not only was I not contacted out of common courtesy and made aware that the image would be used for publication I also haven't been credited for said image in your newspaper.

I am the owner of this image along with others and I find it hard to believe that the sources of an image that you obtain which are not taken by yourselves are not questioned. This may be a case of innocent infringement but nethertheless the owner of this image ie myself should have been at the very least contacted prior to publication to discuss this.

I am invoicing yourselves for the publication of my work.

The use and publication of an image created by ATP Photography in the month of March 2020 - £50

The cost of using and publishing without consent or authorisation from the owner of said image created by ATP Photography- £50

If there are any queries please do not hesitate to contact myself regarding this matter.

I wish to hear from you soon.

Kind regards

Dan (ATP Photography)"
 
KIPAX said:
This is what winds me up... If the person handing the picture to the paper is the person in the picture then surely the paper know they havent taken it?
Click to expand...
They usually get around it by having a clause somewhere that says something to the effect of "by submitting an image you warrant that you have the right to do so;" just like most websites do. This puts the onus back on the submitter and makes the paper guilty of "innocent infringement" worst case... and of course, the submitter doesn't read the terms nor (possibly) understand what they mean if they do...

They might settle up for a nominal fee just because it's less hassle/expense...
 
If you are concerned about such photographs it is best to have clarity at the outset. A few years ago three of us from my camera club were asked to photograph a local Jazz Band at a steam railway location to create photos for a CD cover and other local publicity. A three way agreement was made so that we would take specific shots they had in mind, any other shots we fancied in the time available (several hours). It was agreed that any of the images that we supplied could be freely used by the Jazz Band for publicity but credits would be given in all published cases, the CD, magazine and Newspaper articles. It was also agreed that we could freely use any of the photographs for non-commercial reasons (e.g. competitions) and that the Railway Organisation would also would also be given credits for publicity. The was a great arrangement for all three parties especially as a colour magazine decided to go for a feature. We all ended up with the photos we wanted and plenty of publicity for the Railway, Band, Club and individual credits. As a nice after touch the Jazz Band gave each of us a copy of the CD and agreed to play at the station on a bank holiday for free. No money changed hands at all.

Dave
 
Like I say it's a little disheartening not only because out of good faith I done the shoot for free to help promote the musician, I created his album cover (front & back) plus it was experience for myself but I thought when it comes to exposure if it was the other way around in would have returned that favour by making sure I was credited when due. I'm not asking to be credited everytime something gets posted on social media but in a newspaper at least have the decency to say "look this is the photographer who took the image, makesure he's credited please" never again will I not have a contract signed. Friend/acquaintance or not, they're signing it. Lol
 
DanCanon said:
I have always believed that unless it was "hire to shoot" and I was simply a photographer hired for an event etc
Click to expand...
Unless the photography is done as an employee then you own the copyright. If you were hired to do a shoot then you might not be able to do much with the copyright w/o a release/waiver (section 85 limitations), but you still own them.
 
Diving Pete said:
Sorry if I have read this wrong. Unless you specifically said to the model (& have a signed document to prove it) then as far as they are concerned you have waived copyright & so they can do what they like with it.
Click to expand...

.... Waived copyright or waived permissions to use?
 
DanCanon said:
I'm not asking to be credited everytime something gets posted on social media but in a newspaper at least have the decency to say "look this is the photographer who took the image, makesure he's credited please" never again will I not have a contract signed. Friend/acquaintance or not, they're signing it. Lol
Click to expand...

.... Since when did newspapers have such a 'decency'? Unlike magazines they neither have time nor much inclination - That's the real world I'm sorry to say. You should always ask though but just don't hold your breath!
 
DanCanon said:
I have always believed that unless it was "hire to shoot" and I was simply a photographer hired for an event etc then unless I have stated that the holder of the images ie the subject is the copyrighter and owner of said images then the photographs will always belong to me whether I had a model release form or not...I wrote an email to the paper on the off chance they take notice and maybe understand my issue with this.....

"To Whom It May Concern,

I have been contacted in regards to an image that I have created being used in your newspaper.

The image used is of Ali Gilbert, you have written a short story on his music.

The image was taken and created by myself. Not only was I not contacted out of common courtesy and made aware that the image would be used for publication I also haven't been credited for said image in your newspaper.

I am the owner of this image along with others and I find it hard to believe that the sources of an image that you obtain which are not taken by yourselves are not questioned. This may be a case of innocent infringement but nethertheless the owner of this image ie myself should have been at the very least contacted prior to publication to discuss this.

I am invoicing yourselves for the publication of my work.

The use and publication of an image created by ATP Photography in the month of March 2020 - £50

The cost of using and publishing without consent or authorisation from the owner of said image created by ATP Photography- £50

If there are any queries please do not hesitate to contact myself regarding this matter.

I wish to hear from you soon.

Kind regards

Dan (ATP Photography)"
Click to expand...


I would never in a million years write that in the hope of getting paid... all that claptrap about common courtesy ..as for cost of using without consent.. you simply cant do that.. you cant fine the paper!

There going to read this and bin it..

I have dealt with papers for years.. should have taken my advice.. be nice get paid... :)
 
Yes, that letter doesn’t put you in the best position to get paid. It just sounds snotty.

I had a magazine use 2 of my images last year without permission, and they had every opportunity to contact me prior to publishing.
A firm yet polite letter to them got me a nice cheque, and, an apology.
 
sk66 said:
Having a model release (rights waiver) or not has nothing to do with your copyrights (unless you waive some in it)... so no, a newspaper cannot "do as they wish."

You can ask why you haven't been credited; but it's probably about pointless... "credit" isn't worth much anyway.
If the image was used improperly (i.e. not fair use/dealing), it's quite likely because the subject provided the image w/o indicating that they do not have the right to do so (innocent infringement). Often such submissions have a TOU requirement that the submitter "verifies they are the owner of the image and have the rights to submit the image(s)"... or something to that effect.
In either event there's no real case even though the image may have been used improperly. Also such newspaper images don't often have a high value... and they are not going to do a reprint w/ credit. At best you might get something like 50£ and put your friend in a bind.
Click to expand...

sk66 said:
They usually get around it by having a clause somewhere that says something to the effect of "by submitting an image you warrant that you have the right to do so;" just like most websites do. This puts the onus back on the submitter and makes the paper guilty of "innocent infringement" worst case... and of course, the submitter doesn't read the terms nor (possibly) understand what they mean if they do...

They might settle up for a nominal fee just because it's less hassle/expense...
Click to expand...

sk66 said:
That's why I watermark my images... or if I release an image for specific use w/o watermark the usage terms are very clear and in writing. I.e. the subject knows they cannot just give the image to a newspaper...

In the US (where I am) removal of a watermark is a violation of the DMCA 1998; in the EU/UK I would think it would be a violation of your moral rights... i.e. it's not something a newspaper would do (if they have any sense).
Click to expand...

sk66 said:
Unless the photography is done as an employee then you own the copyright. If you were hired to do a shoot then you might not be able to do much with the copyright w/o a release/waiver (section 85 limitations), but you still own them.
Click to expand...



Please stop commenting on UK copyright law. All of the above highlighted is either wrong, misleading or p1ss poor advice.
 
Last edited:
Diving Pete said:
Sorry if I have read this wrong. Unless you specifically said to the model (& have a signed document to prove it) then as far as they are concerned you have waived copyright & so they can do what they like with it.
Click to expand...


You haven't read it wrong, you just don't understand copyright.
 
DanCanon said:
I have always believed that unless it was "hire to shoot" and I was simply a photographer hired for an event etc then unless I have stated that the holder of the images ie the subject is the copyrighter and owner of said images then the photographs will always belong to me whether I had a model release form or not...I wrote an email to the paper on the off chance they take notice and maybe understand my issue with this.....

"To Whom It May Concern,

I have been contacted in regards to an image that I have created being used in your newspaper.

The image used is of Ali Gilbert, you have written a short story on his music.

The image was taken and created by myself. Not only was I not contacted out of common courtesy and made aware that the image would be used for publication I also haven't been credited for said image in your newspaper.

I am the owner of this image along with others and I find it hard to believe that the sources of an image that you obtain which are not taken by yourselves are not questioned. This may be a case of innocent infringement but nethertheless the owner of this image ie myself should have been at the very least contacted prior to publication to discuss this.

I am invoicing yourselves for the publication of my work.

The use and publication of an image created by ATP Photography in the month of March 2020 - £50

The cost of using and publishing without consent or authorisation from the owner of said image created by ATP Photography- £50

If there are any queries please do not hesitate to contact myself regarding this matter.

I wish to hear from you soon.

Kind regards

Dan (ATP Photography)"
Click to expand...
KIPAX said:
I would never in a million years write that in the hope of getting paid... all that claptrap about common courtesy ..as for cost of using without consent.. you simply cant do that.. you cant fine the paper!

There going to read this and bin it..

I have dealt with papers for years.. should have taken my advice.. be nice get paid... :)
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, apart from one element, I completely agree with Tony.

I don't understand why you would come one here for advice and then go off half-cock.

What is wrong with the above:

You cannot invoice someone unless you have a contract with them. You can only present a demand for damages.
Newspapers and magazines are specifically exempt from the obligation to provide a byline for a photograph. The likelihood of getting credited is usually pretty low.
An editor won't care about your opinion of him in the slightest.

How are they going to pay you? Do you have a bank account in the name of ATP Photography? Where is the invoice that you mentioned?
What is the total amount of the invoice? What are the terms of payment?


As for the one element that I disagree over with Tony...

You absolutely can add multipliers to the damages. However you have to do it correctly and quote the relevant section of the CDPA that has been infringed.
It is also sensible to show case law where the court has awarded similar damages.
 
Dave Canon said:
If you are concerned about such photographs it is best to have clarity at the outset. A few years ago three of us from my camera club were asked to photograph a local Jazz Band at a steam railway location to create photos for a CD cover and other local publicity. A three way agreement was made so that we would take specific shots they had in mind, any other shots we fancied in the time available (several hours). It was agreed that any of the images that we supplied could be freely used by the Jazz Band for publicity but credits would be given in all published cases, the CD, magazine and Newspaper articles. It was also agreed that we could freely use any of the photographs for non-commercial reasons (e.g. competitions) and that the Railway Organisation would also would also be given credits for publicity. The was a great arrangement for all three parties especially as a colour magazine decided to go for a feature. We all ended up with the photos we wanted and plenty of publicity for the Railway, Band, Club and individual credits. As a nice after touch the Jazz Band gave each of us a copy of the CD and agreed to play at the station on a bank holiday for free. No money changed hands at all.

Dave
Click to expand...

Well, yes, hum, then again no.

It's great for the railway because they get staged PR images without having to pay.

It's great for the band because they get PR images and an album cover for free.

It's fantastic for the magazine because they get free content.

What does the photographer get? A name in print that nobody reads and a couple of snap shots of some guys posing with instruments.

That really isn't a fair trade in my view.
 
Reading back I wouldn't pay me either but I'll be honest paid or not I'm making them aware whether they care or not that I haven't missed it. If they reply and offer me £50 that would be a bonus but initially it was credit that held the most importance for me right now, my bills are paid although not because of photography but I am a work in progress and soon hope to make that transition but personally it was credit for an image somebody has taken and used for their own benefit so I guess this was more of an ethical stance. Thanks for all the advice and comments though I appreciate the time you've taken to comment on this lads.
 
DanCanon said:
Reading back I wouldn't pay me either but I'll be honest paid or not I'm making them aware whether they care or not that I haven't missed it. If they reply and offer me £50 that would be a bonus but initially it was credit that held the most importance for me right now, my bills are paid although not because of photography but I am a work in progress and soon hope to make that transition but personally it was credit for an image somebody has taken and used for their own benefit so I guess this was more of an ethical stance. Thanks for all the advice and comments though I appreciate the time you've taken to comment on this lads.
Click to expand...


No one gives a damn about credits and, as I pointed out above, newspapers don't have to give them.

They are also well aware that images should be paid for. However if they can use them for free, they will.
 
sk66 said:
Unless the photography is done as an employee then you own the copyright. If you were hired to do a shoot then you might not be able to do much with the copyright w/o a release/waiver (section 85 limitations), but you still own them.
Click to expand...
Steven,

Re: Section 85 limitations.......Are you sure this is relevant in the UK? I haven't heard of it before.

Dave Canon said:
If you are concerned about such photographs it is best to have clarity at the outset. A few years ago three of us from my camera club were asked to photograph a local Jazz Band at a steam railway location to create photos for a CD cover and other local publicity. A three way agreement was made so that we would take specific shots they had in mind, any other shots we fancied in the time available (several hours). It was agreed that any of the images that we supplied could be freely used by the Jazz Band for publicity but credits would be given in all published cases, the CD, magazine and Newspaper articles. It was also agreed that we could freely use any of the photographs for non-commercial reasons (e.g. competitions) and that the Railway Organisation would also would also be given credits for publicity. The was a great arrangement for all three parties especially as a colour magazine decided to go for a feature. We all ended up with the photos we wanted and plenty of publicity for the Railway, Band, Club and individual credits. As a nice after touch the Jazz Band gave each of us a copy of the CD and agreed to play at the station on a bank holiday for free. No money changed hands at all.

Dave
Click to expand...

Credits count for nothing! They might be nice but I don't understand why people seem to think it all comes down to credits. So who was the winner in all of this? Could it have been the magazine who had no hand in any of it but got some free content for their pages?

Diving Pete said:
Sorry if I have read this wrong. Unless you specifically said to the model (& have a signed document to prove it) then as far as they are concerned you have waived copyright & so they can do what they like with it.
Click to expand...

I am amazed that photographers still believe this! It should be drummed into everyone's head the moment they pick up a camera or smartphone. Copyright belongs to the photographer unless otherwise stated.

But what to do about it all now? if you're lucky you might get a payout from the newspaper. If you don't hear from them within say 10 days, send them a much more business-like, straightforward invoice for the photograph; you could mention "unauthorised use" or "breach of copyright" to give it a bit more weight. Talk to your mate and make sure he knows he shouldn't have handed the photo over. But doing favours for mates like this can easily end in tears. x feels badly done by.....never speaks to y again. (edit: and vice versa) . It's so easy..
 
Last edited:
I think you're missing my point completely. I have absolutely no interest in what somebody else cares about, I don't care if they wouldn't bat an eyelid being credited for the most searched for image in the 21st Century but I'm telling you that being credited for that image is something I care about. I'm not asking who else would care about it or whether they should or shouldn't credit it I was asking for advice as to whether or not I can raise the question as to why I haven't been credited? "WHY" being the operative word in my question. There's that many floors within this subject area regarding copyright infringements etc that nobody seems to know the definitive answer so I have taken onboard the majority opinion and emailed the way I thought was best. It's a learning curve for me and I will acknowledge all that has been said on this thread for future reference. I've visited many forums and I'm hoping this doesn't end up being another one in which every practitioner here hobbyist or professional thinks they're the photographer of all photographers. If I've understood all that's been said and now realised a different approach to that email could have been more beneficial then that's something I've learnt today. As for invoices I write invoices weekly some are professional and some are written gonna piece of A4. I left the email open to possible negotiation and yes I have a business account in the name of ATP Photography that my income is directed to. Once again thanks for the above advice.
 
DanCanon said:
I think you're missing my point completely. I have absolutely no interest in what somebody else cares about, I don't care if they wouldn't bat an eyelid being credited for the most searched for image in the 21st Century but I'm telling you that being credited for that image is something I care about. I'm not asking who else would care about it or whether they should or shouldn't credit it
Click to expand...

I'm not missing your point at all.

I was asking for advice as to whether or not I can raise the question as to why I haven't been credited? "WHY" being the operative word in my question.
Click to expand...

Question asked and answer given.

There's that many floors within this subject area regarding copyright infringements etc that nobody seems to know the definitive answer so I have taken onboard the majority opinion and emailed the way I thought was best.
Click to expand...

There aren't any flaws in copyright legislation and it is one of the more straightforward (in some respects) areas of law. As for the definitive answer. See my first reply to yours, which is pretty much as close to one as you will get.

As for invoices I write invoices weekly some are professional and some are written gonna piece of A4.
Click to expand...

No such thing as a professional or amateur invoice, just an invoice. And that email above isn't an invoice.
 
Regardless of model release, you still own the copyright to that image, even the subject of the images cannot use them without your permission.

I know a lot of people who post images for sale as canvas prints, framed prints etc, when they find one of their images being used there are a few steps they take - gather evidence of the use, screen shots of the web site, an actual copy of the publication etc. Then send the publisher a take down notice and an invoice for the use of the image.
 
Karl.t1965 said:
Regardless of model release, you still own the copyright to that image, even the subject of the images cannot use them without your permission.

I know a lot of people who post images for sale as canvas prints, framed prints etc, when they find one of their images being used there are a few steps they take - gather evidence of the use, screen shots of the web site, an actual copy of the publication etc. Then send the publisher a take down notice and an invoice for the use of the image.
Click to expand...


How many times do you have to say that you can't invoice for infringement?
 
So we're splitting hairs on this thread? Ok so I didn't tell the newspaper that what I have typed below is the invoice, I told them I am invoicing them and stated below what I was going to invoice them for and how much hence why I left the email open to reply. As for the statement made on flaws on copyright I am referring to the fact that there clearly is no definitive answer amongst those who have commented as there is a number of people giving wrong information according to others. So are these opinions or facts? Your comment was great in regards to copyright but again there are people with different opinions so you may be correct and everyone else is oblivious to the real law BUT that doesn't mean I will take yours as fact when I'm asking for advice upon my own research so no my question hasn't been answered quite clearly, there has been many helpful advisories and tips but the question as to am I ok to question WHY is still evidently not been answered and if it has then its within comments about copyright etc. Rather then saying "yes you are well within your right to question why as it is your picture" the thread has taken a roll to other avenues concentrating on more on what is classed as copyright and what isn't. Am I anymore clearer now or?
 
sk66 said:
They usually get around it by having a clause somewhere that says something to the effect of "by submitting an image you warrant that you have the right to do so;" just like most websites do. This puts the onus back on the submitter and makes the paper guilty of "innocent infringement" worst case... and of course, the submitter doesn't read the terms nor (possibly) understand what they mean if they do...
.
Click to expand...

I put all my details in the iptc and on contacting one paper and explaining my info was in there.... honest to god truth they replied with..."we cant be expected to check every picture" .... eeerm yes you can ...
 
DanCanon said:
So we're splitting hairs on this thread? Ok so I didn't tell the newspaper that what I have typed below is the invoice, I told them I am invoicing them and stated below what I was going to invoice them for and how much hence why I left the email open to reply. As for the statement made on flaws on copyright I am referring to the fact that there clearly is no definitive answer amongst those who have commented as there is a number of people giving wrong information according to others. So are these opinions or facts[1]? Your comment was great in regards to copyright but again there are people with different opinions so you may be correct[2] and everyone else is oblivious to the real law BUT that doesn't mean I will take yours as fact when I'm asking for advice upon my own research so no my question hasn't been answered quite clearly, there has been many helpful advisories and tips but the question as to am I ok to question WHY is still evidently not been answered [3] and if it has then its within comments about copyright etc[4]. Rather then saying "yes you are well within your right to question why as it is your picture" the thread has taken a roll to other avenues concentrating on more on what is classed as copyright and what isn't. Am I anymore clearer now or?
Click to expand...

[1] Facts

[2] I'll let others tell you whether they think my knowledge on media law is sound or not.

[3] As for your questions have been answered several times, but once again...

DanCanon said:
Can I raise the question as to why I haven't been credited?
Click to expand...

Newspapers have no legal obligation to give a byline under the CDPA 1988. So mostly, they don't.


Or because I didn't have the subject sign a model release form then newspaper can do as they wish with the it?
Click to expand...

No.


[4] That's because the relevant law IS copyright.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Well, yes, hum, then again no.

It's great for the railway because they get staged PR images without having to pay.

It's great for the band because they get PR images and an album cover for free.

It's fantastic for the magazine because they get free content.

What does the photographer get? A name in print that nobody reads and a couple of snap shots of some guys posing with instruments.

That really isn't a fair trade in my view.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely wrong! All three parties are amateurs including the steam railway which relies on volunteers and free support. We all got what we wanted. Between us photographers, we have been successful in international and national Salons with a few of our pics. We are not bothered about the individual credits but the publicity for the club was useful. The Steam railway needs support and we were glad to do so and could not have done as well without their cooperation. A steam engine arrived in the station under a bridge with insufficient steam for our purpose. We were able to request that the train backed up and went through the bridge again but making steam. No the "snaps" were not just a few guys posing with instruments as we had them for several hours in various part of the station and yard (including areas not permitted to the public). Of course, if we needed to earn money from photography, it would be different but we just need photographs for competitions. It is a fair trade if all parties are happy as they were in this case.

Incidentally, I do agree with your comments about copyright law. In our agreement which was in writing we did not give up copyright but licenced the other parties to limited use of the images. We also agreed that none of the parties (including us) would commercially exploit the images outside that agreement without a further agreement.

Dave
 
Popcorn at the ready!

You do know what Demilion does / did for a living don't you?

He helped me out enormously when some of my images were used by Meridian Media without my consent.

AND they changed the copyright on the exif from mine to theirs.

I could have gone after them for a lot more than I got but I couldn't be bothered with the hassle.
 
DemiLion I don't need to ask anybody on your knowledge of copyright I'm simply saying there are a lot of ifs and buts on this thread relating to it. Do your comments sound more substantial? I will agree they do but I'm taking it all in, this is.how we learn. The link that you shared I will take a look at after work, thank you for that. In your reply to me I am able to understand those answers much clearer, it is confusing to know who is answering to what when the messages aren't directed to you personally and you're reading a thread of comments all replying and talking about different legislations which evidently to me is a different language otherwise I wouldn't have asked the initial question. So moving forward thank you for your help and your advice I now understand where I stand with copyright and newspapers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top