Images used without permission
Discussion
I did a shoot last year for one of the specialist car mags on a freelance basis.
The shoot was a farce, they took ages to pay and to cap it all have used three of my images in an advert every month since.
The images were and are being used without permission so I have sent them an invoice which actually totals more than the original shoot.
I will continue to do this each month until the images are either pulled from the advert or I am paid.
Are there any copyright lawyers out there who could advise me on how to proceed? Do I go after the publishers or the company who's advert contains the images?
The shoot was a farce, they took ages to pay and to cap it all have used three of my images in an advert every month since.
The images were and are being used without permission so I have sent them an invoice which actually totals more than the original shoot.
I will continue to do this each month until the images are either pulled from the advert or I am paid.
Are there any copyright lawyers out there who could advise me on how to proceed? Do I go after the publishers or the company who's advert contains the images?
Did they/you sign a terms of usage agreement for the images when they commissioned you for the shoot ?
Did that handover copyright to them ? If not the copyright is still yours.
As has been said - call them up to discuss it, follow up with a letter and if you're still convinced you haven't given them permission to use the images in anyway they want (remember they would normally send a contract out for the commission), drop them an invoice for supply of the image, adding a fee for unauthorised use to it. Give them 30 days to pay, send them another invoice with late payment fee added and if they still don't pay the normal process would be to the small claims court.
Did that handover copyright to them ? If not the copyright is still yours.
As has been said - call them up to discuss it, follow up with a letter and if you're still convinced you haven't given them permission to use the images in anyway they want (remember they would normally send a contract out for the commission), drop them an invoice for supply of the image, adding a fee for unauthorised use to it. Give them 30 days to pay, send them another invoice with late payment fee added and if they still don't pay the normal process would be to the small claims court.
RobDickinson said:
Sorry a car magazine commisioned you to do a photoshoot, then (ok late) paid you for it?
It was my understanding if you commision a photographer to shoot something then the images are yours, obviously depending on any specific contract wording.
That used to be the case, but I'm fairly sure it changed so, unless it's specifically mentioned in the contract, the photographer retains the copyright.It was my understanding if you commision a photographer to shoot something then the images are yours, obviously depending on any specific contract wording.
(I may be wrong though)
Copyright will remain with the photographer - regardless who's commissioned the work. Unless the contract says otherwise and the tog has signed it over to them.
They're only really getting a license to use the images in a manner that the photographer agrees with in the context that it doesn't harm his reputation as a photographer.
They're only really getting a license to use the images in a manner that the photographer agrees with in the context that it doesn't harm his reputation as a photographer.
Pick through this:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/conten...
It may be helpful if you quote a few bits as well. However if they say 'tough b
ks' then trying to sue for breach of copyright is unlikely to be worth it, after a four-figure legal fee.
NB: Photography comes under 'artistic'.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/conten...
It may be helpful if you quote a few bits as well. However if they say 'tough b
ks' then trying to sue for breach of copyright is unlikely to be worth it, after a four-figure legal fee.NB: Photography comes under 'artistic'.
pixelpimp said:
I did a shoot last year for one of the specialist car mags on a freelance basis.
The shoot was a farce, they took ages to pay and to cap it all have used three of my images in an advert every month since.
The images were and are being used without permission so I have sent them an invoice which actually totals more than the original shoot.
I will continue to do this each month until the images are either pulled from the advert or I am paid.
Are there any copyright lawyers out there who could advise me on how to proceed? Do I go after the publishers or the company who's advert contains the images?
What were the terms of the original commission?The shoot was a farce, they took ages to pay and to cap it all have used three of my images in an advert every month since.
The images were and are being used without permission so I have sent them an invoice which actually totals more than the original shoot.
I will continue to do this each month until the images are either pulled from the advert or I am paid.
Are there any copyright lawyers out there who could advise me on how to proceed? Do I go after the publishers or the company who's advert contains the images?
Part of the contract would have(should have) detailed the specific usage license which was issued.
This may be a simple case of a misunderstanding (by both parties)as if the license was for "print use for 1 year" or the like then they are doing nothing wrong.
If it was detailed as a one time usage for xxx only then they are.
Call the originial commissioning agent or company and have a chat with them before you go off the deep end and start getting (expensive) legal bods involved.
RobDickinson said:
It was my understanding if you commision a photographer to shoot something then the images are yours, obviously depending on any specific contract wording.
Since 1988 it's been the other way around - the images are the photographer's unless the contract states otherwise. (The exception is an employee taking photos as part of their job, where rights belong to the employer.)RobDickinson said:
It was my understanding if you commision a photographer to shoot something then the images are yours, obviously depending on any specific contract wording.
You seem to have the same misunderstanding about copyright as you did on a recent iTunes thread. Just like buying the physical vinyl, CD, photographic print or CDs with pictures on them, doesn't give you the rights to the works. You pay for and own the physical media and a licence to use the music or photography in accordance with the terms and conditions of the publisher, or license agreed at the time if the work was commissioned.As already mentioned, for UK law, up until the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988, it used to be true that photographers along with engravers (IIRC), were the only remaining creative industries not to retain the copyright in their works. Since then, the photographer retains copyright and should agree what license he grants to his client when the work is commissioned.
Negotiating usage, if it wasn't specified in the first place, is going to be tricky for the OP. I would be sending the bill to the company who places the adverts. In effect, they have stolen your work. But it is also wrong for the publisher to have given it to them... unless they think it all your work is royalty free and you have assigned your copyright to them. So the lesson is, be clear, in writing, what you are selling and how it can or cannot be used in the future.
I had something like this happen to me once. A newspaper started using my pictures for an add. The pictures were originally commissioned by one of my clients (who had placed an add with the newspaper), who alerted me (they were not happy either). It got a little messy after I put in a large bill. They didn't want to pay as they didn't think the pics were worth it. I pointed out they had stolen them, and what they perceived the pictures to be 'worth' had nothing to do with it, I also wanted compensation. I didn't resort to litigation as I knew it wasn't really worth the hassle. In the end, I made them settle with a large donation to a charity of my choice Although, even then the b
ds didn't want to pay up! Until I, in not so many words, threatened to share the story about how they were happy to steal work, but were to mean to give the settlement to a terminally ill children's charity. That finally worked. Some people 
.Hope the OP gets a satisfactory outcome, good luck.
RobDickinson said:
Sorry if you employ someone to do a job for you most people dont expect that person to walk off with the work, right?
On the other side, if you brought other digital content (like a windows CD or some music for e.g.) would you expect to have full rights to reproduce it?The issue here is that people view photographs from different perspectives. Someone earlier said get on the phone and check if it's a misunderstanding; it's great advise as 95% of the time it will be... as shown by the confusion on this thread.
pernod said:
On the other side, if you brought other digital content (like a windows CD or some music for e.g.) would you expect to have full rights to reproduce it?
Were not talking about buying a CD here. Were more talking about paying the band to record you a jingle for an advert. You dont expectg to pay the band for their time and effort only for them to walk off with the recording.Yes it depends on the wording of the contract but I still see the customer as expecting to be able to use the work he has paid for.
RobDickinson said:
Yes it depends on the wording of the contract but I still see the customer as expecting to be able to use the work he has paid for.
It may be different in NZ but what we've stated is UK law. Period. Argue with the House of Commons if you don't like it 
Copyright and usage are two different things. One is legal ownership, one is license (ie permission to use)
Simpo Two said:
It may be different in NZ but what we've stated is UK law. Period. Argue with the House of Commons if you don't like it
Copyright and usage are two different things. One is legal ownership, one is license (ie permission to use)
It is different in NZ law, only in that if you commision a photographer to work for you then you ownt rhe image not the photog. Copyright and usage are two different things. One is legal ownership, one is license (ie permission to use)
I'm just stating what the client would likely beleive and that something granting the client use of the images for something should have been writen into a contract. I doubt they wanted to employ a photographer and have nothing to use or show for it.
RobDickinson said:
It is different in NZ law
Ah well there you go!RobDickinson said:
only in that if you commision a photographer to work for you then you ownt rhe image not the photog. I'm just stating what the client would likely beleive and that something granting the client use of the images for something should have been writen into a contract. I doubt they wanted to employ a photographer and have nothing to use or show for it.
Indeed; normally when you commission a tog you'd say 'It's for XYZ' and the tog would include that in the quote. However many people, in the UK too, think that once they've paid the tog it's their to do with as they wish for ever. It's logical, but not true, any more than you can copy a DVD and sell copies on eBay.RobDickinson said:
It is different in NZ law, only in that if you commision a photographer to work for you then you ownt rhe image not the photog.
I'm just stating what the client would likely beleive and that something granting the client use of the images for something should have been writen into a contract. I doubt they wanted to employ a photographer and have nothing to use or show for it.
I mentioned UK law as I don't have knowledge of NZ copyright law, but it would seem you are indeed correct! I had a little look and found this: http://www.aipa.org.nz/Columns/Legal+Matters/THE+C...I'm just stating what the client would likely beleive and that something granting the client use of the images for something should have been writen into a contract. I doubt they wanted to employ a photographer and have nothing to use or show for it.
Not sure how up to date that is but looks like the NZ photographers are in the same boat as the UK ones back in 88, who fought for the same rights as they had in the USA.... People often say that visiting NZ is like going back in time.... I'm sure this will change. Having a quick scan, it looks like Oz law changed to the US/UK position in 98.
If photographers were commissioned to take a pic and then not let the client use it they wouldn't last long! But, the UK law (and in this instance it's what we are talking about), states that an artist, photographer or any other creative profession, has the right to make a living from their creativity.
An example how it works in advertising, in the real world, is that the client commissions the photographer, agrees to a license, for, say, maybe two years exclusive use (only the commissioning client can use the image, the photographer can usually only use it for self publicity). There after, if the client doesn't want to re-neogotiate another licence, the photographer can sell the image, maybe through a stock library. That's one example but there maybe many variables and other conditions etc.
You may think that unfair to the client? This is how the best photographers work and if a client wants the best image for his company, magazine etc, just like anything else in life, you have to pay top dollar. Maybe if someone commissioned you to take a picture of a girl scratching her arse on a tennis court and paid you $1000 you would be very happy with that. But I doubt you would be so happy if that client went on to sell your picture as a poster that sold for millions, that you had no further claim to!
Some interesting stuff here chaps, thanks for the input.
I am awaiting a response from the publisher who originally commissioned me.
He seems quite reasonable and thinks it's a design team misunderstanding.
As it was a one off job for a feature and the advert is for the company who supplied that featured car, I do believe I am owed something by one or both parties.
I wait and see how it pans out.
I am awaiting a response from the publisher who originally commissioned me.
He seems quite reasonable and thinks it's a design team misunderstanding.
As it was a one off job for a feature and the advert is for the company who supplied that featured car, I do believe I am owed something by one or both parties.
I wait and see how it pans out.
RobDickinson said:
Were not talking about buying a CD here. Were more talking about paying the band to record you a jingle for an advert. You dont expectg to pay the band for their time and effort only for them to walk off with the recording.
Yes it depends on the wording of the contract but I still see the customer as expecting to be able to use the work he has paid for.
Um, actually 99% of the ad's I've ever been involved in the band continues to own the ongoing rights and the agency/customer is simply granted rights for the ad they commissioned it for (normally with some form of cap, usually time). So actually, that is the perfect analogy...Yes it depends on the wording of the contract but I still see the customer as expecting to be able to use the work he has paid for.
Edit: just to clarify, I'm talking UK here...
Edited by pernod on Sunday 30th January 23:13
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff