I found a couple images of mine in a magazine.. advice pls?

[steveprice]

Ken Rockwell usually talks sense on most things photography:

See here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/copyright.htm

Steve Price

[dougj]

It seems like a simple issue of someone stealing the images and publishing them without consent, it probably is and as posted the OP should look for compensation from the magazine.

There is an ongoing discussion in the Pro section of dpreview related to a similar, not identical issue. Some of the comments & references are interesting.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=22222872

And if anyone is having trouble falling to sleep, here is a URL to copyright & Fair Use.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... index.html

As mentioned, proceed diplomatically but these are your images and you should be entitled to recognition & some compensation. And possibly business in the future. Just my opinion.

[klake]

Ken Rockwell usually talks sense on most things photography:

See here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/copyright.htm

Steve Price

Actually Ken has it wrong here. Well part of it wrong. He did not mention that the record label lost because it knowingly copied (or imitated) the image. If they could have reasonably proven that it was coincidence, then case dismissed, both would have their own copyrights.

Similarly, suppose that two people write a book, each locked in separate prison cells (secret CIA black holes) in different countries with no outside communication. Both get out and copyright their works. Turns out by perfect coincidence, they are identical word-for-word. (Probably because both just say "Kill Donald Rumsfeld" 3,000 times.) One publishes, the other finds out, and sues. But the defendant proves original authorship. Case dismissed, they both retain the rights to their works. (The second could always publish his as well if he wanted a piece of the money.)

Related to the debate of IP and punishment but not photos: patent law is far more brutal. If instead of a book, we were talking about a widget (or a "business process"), then the defendant--still perfectly innocent morally speaking--is liable for damages, plus cease-and-desist. If it can be demonstrated that the defendant knew of the plaintiff's patent before hand, it's an automatic 3 times the money. This is why, in some company's lobbies, you see copies of their patents lining the walls. They know that scientists, engineers, salespeople--everyone--from competing firms visit each other all the time, for potential sharing/licensing/partnering deals etc. Attorney: "So Mr. Company A Research Scientist, you were in the lobby of Company B on August 10th, 2005. Is that correct?" Scientist: "Um, I guess so." Fast forward, case closed. Triple damages. (Of course that's grossly oversimplified but you get the idea.) And we wonder why the rush for companies to patent every snippet of code possible. (Calling it a "software process" doesn't change what it is. Of course volumes could be written about other ways in which the US patent--and copyright--systems are broken!)

-Jim

[equianio]

Yesterday I found a magazine with 4 of my photos from my site^ with the images still tagged with my symbol on the bottom right!!

I absolutely did NOT grant any permission to publish anything..

Can I do anything about this? any advice would be great..


Absolutely!!

Copyright Fight- Read Here: http://www.popphoto.com/photographynews ... fight.html

[ghsmith178613]

Ill keep it short.

I shot an event, posted some pictures here.. http://www.pbase.com/byronc/golden_palms_foundation_1142006

Yesterday I found a magazine with 4 of my photos from my site^ with the images still tagged with my symbol on the bottom right!!

I absolutely did NOT grant any permission to publish anything..

Can I do anything about this? any advice would be great..

i see you are in the states. i wonder if you are a member of any of the professional associations? wpa? ppa? asmp? membership often entitles you to free/almost free legal help.

[jazzmaster221]

i just spotted a online newspaper and a hotel booking agency using my photo's los angeles skyline ..boy that really burns me up..i email then very politly to refrain from usage or to respect my rights as the artist and reimburse me for usage

[neela106]

This is a good discussion. If anyone can advice how to deal my situation I'll be very thankful

I was a student and was offered to take pictures in a dance competition in Holland without payment in cash from the organizer but 1 free meal and they even put my name in the guide book of that competition. I took the chance because if anyone would purchase my pictures would help my spending budget (turned out not to be very significant though I did enjoy the event and how ppl said they liked my works)

I have found my images were used on the Dutch Rock and Roll, Boogie, etc Federation (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rock 'n' Roll, Boogie, Swing en Acrobatische dansvormen)website banner right after I post the picture on my website for ppl to purchase them. I wrote the webmaster 3 mails (all in Dutch) explaining I didnt give them any permission to use my pictures and if they wanted to use them, they should have asked, and I did state that I was willing to settle for a reasonable fee for them to keep the banner.....and all I got was stone-silence.

What got me frustrated even more was they used photoshop-alike software to removed my copyright marks across the pictures. I couldnt have done much right then because I finished my study and go back to Vietnam soon after I found out about the violation of my picture.

This is the website where you can find the banner right on top of it

http://www.nrra.nl

These are 2 pictures of me that they used to create that banner

http://www.pbase.com/neela106/image/63641223
http://www.pbase.com/neela106/image/63640970

[jstuedle]

I totally agree with ronsc. And this is not an issue of "a small gain"; its an issue of copyright infringement. As ronsc states, if there was no agreement and you were not paid for the assignment, then the magazine has infringed your copyright and they know it (otherwise they should not be in the business of publishing )

Its all too common for magazines and others who buy images to try to pull the wool over amateur photographer's eyes! The lady fobbed you off by stating that the foundation supplied the images without checking with you the legal status of using them.

But as both ronsc and I have stated, its depends on your agreement with the foundation.

Cheers
Sheila

In the US, it is the publisher who is responsible for release and license of any image they choose to print. Those images are your intellectual property unless you have negotiated that right away. The publisher is therefore responsible for compensation of any copyrighted material used in a publication, unless the "middleman" has acquired license from the copyright holder for use by a third party. The photographer may or may not have a release from those in the image. If not the publisher must acquire it or bare the risk of reprisal from the subjects in the image. It is only in very rare, unique cases where the photographer would be liable. (Of course, without a release the chances of selling your work is more limited, but that is another topic)

So, 1) The children's foundation can give them anything, BUT the publisher must acquire the rights to print and any release from individuals in the image. And 2) without license to print being supplied by the children's foundation after acquiring it from you, they must negotiate license and compensation from you. You need not be concerned about offending the foundation. This publisher has simply "passed the buck" to another party.