geogphotos

Another infringement found

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

This is a black and white picture that has never been made available for stock, though similar colour ones are on Alamy. I can only think it has been copied from an old 1991 magazine article or news story. It is of historic interest and since the object of the image has been destroyed cannot be recreated.

 

The use is in a UK online regional news editorial article. The publisher is a subsidiary of a national media company. 

 

I have had no reply to my initial friendly email from either the journalist or Head of Contact. I asked about where they sourced it, if they had a licence.

 

Any diligent search would have found similar images of mine available for stock or enabling me to be traced - I'm thinking 'flagrancy'. 

 

There is no licence from the Orphan Works register - combined with lack of search I'm thinking lack of due diligence here. 

 

What sort of ballpark figure do you suggest?

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DG13 said:

HI, I just found a website proposing to download some pictures (some are mine) even with watermarks.

 

http://www.pinsdaddy.com/wadi-shab-oasis-oman_Mz5yS1GWjsqnUiPWbftOTmBI3EmrMkEUMbsCmiJQpWc/

 

Nothing can be done as this is in PANAMA!

 

Cheers,

 

Yes mine are also on that Pinsdaddy site.:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 03/07/2018 at 09:02, geogphotos said:

 

 

What sort of ballpark figure do you suggest?

Along the lines of your previous one?

I'm always of the opinion that an infringer shouldn't be looking to get away with a figure less than the low hundreds.

Flagrancy in my understanding is trying to conceal the source- it's a sin of commission not omission. Like the watermark removal in Webb v VA Events. But I could be wrong about that- you may be able to justify it. Depends what you find out about the use.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This one is different in that the image has been scanned from a print or possibly from a magazine article. I did send a print to a museum so that might have somehow found its way to these publishers, somebody might have scanned it from an overseas magazine in which it was published. Although I have no memory of it I can't completely rule out that I might have sent a print to one of the local newspapers in this media group - this was 30 years ago, but I feel sure that I would remember if I had done that - just can't rule it out 100%.

 

Their argument is that it is in their digital collection and was assumed to have been donated. My reply was that I am the copyright owner ( and I have shown proof in the form of a contact sheet) and have not given permission in any form. In conversation they told me that it was used in an article in 2015 in addition to the one I found in 2018, quite likely it has been used repeatedly over the years which is why it has ended up as a digital copy in their files. The image has been published without any credit because they are clearly unsure of its origin. 

 

Any sort of diligent search would have found similar images, and I suppose another option for them would have been to buy an Orphan Works licence, but I accept that they probably thought that they were in the clear but had not recorded the actual source. 

 

Having demonstrated by copyright ownership I have asked them to respond in writing giving their version of events. I will wait a week and then send an invoice by 'signed for' mail. As in the previous case will probably ask for a fairly reasonable sum for a quick, amicable settlement in return for a retrospective licence covering all past uses. If no payment in 14 days I will consider the IPEC route - their lack of response/co-operation being significant.

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they've been using it for "years"? Hmm.

As I remember in print days, you got a fee for each use. So even if you did provide it to them originally, that licence is beyond expired.

You can take an informed guess as to when they either started their website or scanned their archive. So, say one use a year for, what, 15 years- the low hundreds is starting to look modest- to-reasonable. Their lack of records is hardly your problem but surely there would be an origination date on the scan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

So they've been using it for "years"? Hmm.

As I remember in print days, you got a fee for each use. So even if you did provide it to them originally, that licence is beyond expired.

You can take an informed guess as to when they either started their website or scanned their archive. So, say one use a year for, what, 15 years- the low hundreds is starting to look modest- to-reasonable. Their lack of records is hardly your problem but surely there would be an origination date on the scan.

 

 

You know how newspapers and the BBC and the like encourage people to send in their pics and agree to what is basically a copyright-grab? That must be what they are thinking but I have definitely not signed anything at all. I've placed the ball firmly in their court and told them that they need to demonstrate that they have the correct permissions in place  - not the other way around! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now