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

[byronc]

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..

[gemmf]

I'm sorry to hear that. I would write immediately to the magazine and negotiate the fees.

I'd also stop posting the high res images on the net. It CAN prevent this from happening again. (Still there's no way of stopping the thieves though)

[steveprice]

They are in breach of your copyright, meaning they have broken the law. And if they do it to you they may do it to others.

It seems a little odd that you should accidentally stumble across this use of your pictures. Is there any reason for them to think that they might be entitled to use the pictures.

You must make it clear to them that they are not entitled to use photos without the photographers premission. But rather than sue them you would be prepared to accept a fee for your work. They may simply be ignorant of the law in this respect and be apollogetic when you aporoach them and agree to your terms, or they might dig their heels in. Be prepared for either eventuality. Be sure of your ground. Consider the conditions of your fee very carefully. Dont compromise on the amount. Also consider what the fee will entitle them to do with the pictures in the future. It might entitle them to a one time use of the pictures and if they use them again they must pay another fee. Or you might allow them to purchase ownership of the photos. Only you can decide this.

Just because we post our pictures on the internet it does not mean we are giving up our rights to ownership of the pictures. If what you say is correct you must not let them get away with it.


Steve Price

[dang]

I'd bill the magazine, as suggested, but be polite. Once you've found what they intend to do, I'd contact the people in the photos to let them know also. But you might find, those you photographed may be the very ones who publish (or gave permission to) the magazine without telling you. They'll probably be surprised you are the actual copyright owner, especially if you were paid.

Getting published should be a happy event, sorry for your grief due to the way it was done. But if you try to work with the magazine in a polite way, you might get more work in the future because of it. Most publishers are good people, and can make an honest mistake.

[ronsc]

Recently a similar situation occurred with me. A friend told me he had seen some of my photographs on the web site of a large and well-known local real estate company. This picqued my interest since I had not sold them the photos or otherwise given them permission to use them. I checked out the web site and, sure enough, there was a Flash animation at the top of the home page that rotated several photos, three of which were mine. I then called the company and identified myself and briefly explained why I was calling. The secretary who answered the phone started giving me a runaround so I told her that the company was violating federal copyright law and my next phone call would be to my attorney. She then took my name and number and said someone would return my call.

In about fifteen minutes I received a phone call from someone else in the company. She quickly acknowledged they had made a mistake and asked if she could have a couple of days to rectify the matter. I told her that was OK and that they could either purchase the photos from me (at a reasonable price) or remove them from their web site. About an hour later she sent me an e-mail asking that I fax them an invoice for the purchase of the photos. I did so immediately. The next day I received the check.

I was polite and professional - but firm - in all my conversations and other correspondence. I was quite happy to get paid and it's obvious they knew they were wrong and wanted to make it right with me ASAP.

I suggest you try something similar. Since your photos are in a magazine that is already published they can't undo what is done. But they can pay you. Let's hope they listen to reason. I would suggest you be polite and businesslike, but don't take any crap either, and not be exorbitant in your pricing. If they pay, that's great. If not, you may want to contact an attorney. Short of spending money on a lawyer you may be able to file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau or some other organization. Or, you may be able to take them to small claims court. But don't let them get away with it.

[byronc]

Thanks for the input guys. Ill be calling them tomorrow.

[dougj]

A note concerning ownership & usage rights. First, I am not a lawyer so take this for it’s worth. Based on what you posted, and I presume you are in the US, you own the copyright and the images can not be used without your permission. Since there are readily identifiable persons in the photos, you are limited as to what you can grant in terms of a license for the photos usage if you do not have the appropriate written release from the identifiable subjects in the photos.

I just turned down licensing one of my photos for this reason. Although I believe I am within my rights to grant a license for the stated purpose, when I received the publishers license agreement it was far too broad and included any publication, of any type, anywhere, by anyone, forever.

The subject in the photo might not be pleased if he finds himself in an advertisement seemingly endorsing some controversial cause or product. The shot in question was taken a few years ago, I don’t have a release and it’s not worth pursuing for me.

News usage seems to be OK for non-released images of people. The magazine pages you illustrated seem to fit that description. As others posted, I suggest you approach this in a professional, non-confrontational manner, negotiate a fair price for your images. You might just get some future business from the publisher.

I hope this helps.

[sheila]

I agree with gemmf. Your images are in a very high resolution and so anyone could be tempted to download them. I would post 800 pixels lowest and 200 kb highest. While this does not necessarily preclude folk from downloading them, it does make printing them almost impossible with pixellation.

If you sell images from your site where you want high res, then put a password on the gallery.

The law is on your side BTW, wherever you live. They have infringed your copyright.

Cheers
Sheila

[jdepould]

A note concerning ownership & usage rights. First, I am not a lawyer so take this for it’s worth. Based on what you posted, and I presume you are in the US, you own the copyright and the images can not be used without your permission. Since there are readily identifiable persons in the photos, you are limited as to what you can grant in terms of a license for the photos usage if you do not have the appropriate written release from the identifiable subjects in the photos.

I just turned down licensing one of my photos for this reason. Although I believe I am within my rights to grant a license for the stated purpose, when I received the publishers license agreement it was far too broad and included any publication, of any type, anywhere, by anyone, forever.

The subject in the photo might not be pleased if he finds himself in an advertisement seemingly endorsing some controversial cause or product. The shot in question was taken a few years ago, I don’t have a release and it’s not worth pursuing for me.

News usage seems to be OK for non-released images of people. The magazine pages you illustrated seem to fit that description. As others posted, I suggest you approach this in a professional, non-confrontational manner, negotiate a fair price for your images. You might just get some future business from the publisher.

I hope this helps.

The page didn't look like an ad, so that makes it editorial use, which does not limit photographer's rights.

[dougj]

The page didn't look like an ad, so that makes it editorial use, which does not limit photographer's rights.

I agree, so there may not be an issue with licensing for this use. It seems to be a local publication reporting on local events, and also a possible source for some future business.

Although the Berne Convention establishes legal & artistic rights, the implementation seems to vary amongst some countries. As an example, I believe copyright ownwership in Canada is automatically assigned to the organization contracting to do the shooting, not the photographer, unless the contract stipulates otherwise. I don't think we can assume the photographer owns the copyright in all countries under all conditions. I'm suggesting caution and an understanding of the rights & responsibilities to avoid problems.

The US copyright law is clear, but one must be careful with legally assigning future use and accepting the associated legal responsibility, which was my point.

[ronsc]

Thanks for the input guys. Ill be calling them tomorrow.

Please let us know what happens - this is the type of thing that can happen to any of us.

[byronc]

Thanks for the input guys. Ill be calling them tomorrow.

Please let us know what happens - this is the type of thing that can happen to any of us.

After many calls I was able to reach the marketing director. She was very polite, then I told her my situation. So she explained that the foundation is responsible for turning in these photos..

Now I am NOT about to go after a children's foundation for a small gain on my end. Someone on another forum said "use those who use you". Therefore ill "pick my battles" and use this magazine as a reference.

[sheila]

You do not state if you were paid to do the shoot in the first place and if you had any agreement with the company (or foundation), which assigned you to take the images, as to the use of the images. I know this gets very complicated but its the crux of the issue.

Cheers
Sheila

[ronsc]

After many calls I was able to reach the marketing director. She was very polite, then I told her my situation. So she explained that the foundation is responsible for turning in these photos..

Now I am NOT about to go after a children's foundation for a small gain on my end. Someone on another forum said "use those who use you". Therefore ill "pick my battles" and use this magazine as a reference.

If you had no agreement with the children's foundation than this is a matter strictly between you and the magazine publisher. If there was no agreement, the foundation had no legal basis to give your photos to the magazine for publishing. The magazine should have made sure they had the right to use them. You are certainly free to pick your battles, but if it was me I would tell the lady at the magazine that they used copyrighted images unlawfully and insist on payment. You don't have to "go after" the children's foundation.

But if you had an agreement with the foundation then it may be an entirely different situation.

Just my 2c.

[sheila]

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