mrs.cos Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) One of my fellow Admins on a photography forum has recently had to deal with a company stealing one of his images.. its been a six month long ordeal that is still in legal issues- He shared what he has learned with the rest of us. New School of Photography Ever found someone using your image w/o your permission? What should you, and what CAN you do next? This happened to me this summer. It's been a very educational experience. I can NOT share with you specific information (which is why the old thread is gone), but I can share with you what to do. First things first. DO NOT GET UPSET. Or at least don't take your anger out on the person who borrowed your work. If they're willing to borrow work wherever they find it, consider it a massive compliment they chose YOUR work over all the other option out there. You're allowed to get upset, but don't take it out on them. Act professionally as this will help you get an easier and or faster and possibly larger settlement. So don't go in gun's blazing!!!! The first question you need to ask yourself is where did they get the image from, and what rights are assigned to the image in that format. Now, I KNOW that the copyright is the photographers the instant he pressed the shutter, no argument there. But if you're sharing your work on a site like flickr with some of their creative common rights turned on, you're going to have a much harder time getting anything out of the person who used the image. So MAKE SURE wherever you're sharing your work, at least turn off the creative commons options, and also turn off the right click save/share options as well. http://www.benjacobsenphoto.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/beavertail-12-24-2011/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-img_5675.jpg Second, is the image watermarked with a © and the year it was taken? Again, you own the copyright w/o this, but having that (or even just your name, but the © adds some punch to it in a courtroom) on your image makes your case significantly stronger. Is there any sort of watermark on the image at all (where you shared it). And if so, DID THEY REMOVE THIS! This is CRUCIAL to getting a better case. Third, did you file your copyright to this image with the copyright office BEFORE they borrowed it? If so, GREAT, this again makes your case easier with a likely bigger/faster settlement. If not, GO FILE IT IMMEDIATELY (it took 6 months for my paperwork to arrive). Here's where you go: http://copyright.gov/eco/ When filing a copyright, it's $35 for one session. A session is either ONE CD mailed in (not sure if DVDs work) which includes as much as you can fit on it (at web res, but large enough it's easy to know if it's the photo in question in court). You can do this ONLINE, and an online session is as many images as you can upload in an hour (I think, check the site). Basically, once a quarter we should all be paying $35 and either sending in a disk or ULing copies of what's on our sites to the copyright office.... So, now that we've covered the initial questions, what are your next steps? If either 2 or 3 is true from the above, I'd call a lawyer. If it's only #1, I'd send the person a bill for what my normal rates are. The issue with that is you don't know how they used the image (number of stores etc), so you have to make some assumptions. For that reason most people double what they'd normally charge for that usage. To get an idea what the usage might cost, go to http://www.gettyimages.com, find an image similar to yours, and use their purchasing system to see what they'd charge for it. Then REDUCE that number by about 25% since they'd get a cut of any fees collected if you sold it legitimately... The issues with #2 and #3 above, is each have fees associated with them. So if you're covering your bases your case is MUCH stronger, that's where the lawyer come in. What should you do to protect yourself going forward? WATERMARK YOUR WORK! Simply having that on the image, and them removing it, means the fine is $2,500~$25,000 depending on the severity of the copyright removal (which I'd think photoshopping out a watermark is pretty blatant). If the copyright has already OFFICIALLY been filed, that's another fee to tack on (up to $150,000 I think?). Then on top of both of those you get to ALSO go after your normal bill for their use AND any legal fees. In my case the image was most likely taken from flickr (it was also on my blog). I do NOT have the creative commons licence turned on there, and I have right clicking suppressed. I spotted it in a store in a retail display. It was used in the product display (not done by the store). I had NOT filed a copyright at the time. I DID have a © on it with my site name. They had photoshopped that off the image. I was put in touch with a lawyer, and he helped me through the next steps. Basically, we figured out who used it (their logo was on the display). I then filed the copyright and we waited that out... Once I received that paperwork, my lawyer sent them a letter. From there a settlement was reached that covered the use of the image, my legal fees and a fine for removing the logo. When I contacted the lawyer initially, they wanted a $100 consultation fee and then to bill me hourly (they already knew most of the details of the case). I instead opted to split my settlement with them 66/33. I felt this was fair for both parties and it would also encourage them to go after the biggest settlement that was fair. After 6 months I received a settlement check. CNs: If someone borrows an image, you can get paid. ALWAYS WATERMARK YOUR WORK, even if it's just subtle, as that adds $2500~$25,000 to the fees they'll have to pay if they remove it (and it makes the case better if they don't as well). File your images with the copyright office for the golden egg, but this is a 4 times yearly PITA that costs you $35, so YMMV. Depending on your situation, either get a lawyer and go after them, or DIY via an invoice, but DO NOT let them get away w/o at least paying you what they would have had to pay initially. THEY'RE ALREADY USING IT, they can't really NOT pay you at this point! Edited January 6, 2012 by damreds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnaplay1647545503 Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 Skimmed through, but did the guy ever get paid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted January 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 After 6 months I received a settlement check. IIRC he found his image in a magazine of HIS sailboat for a wine company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceGhost Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 I agree watermarks should be used for images like that, but the hey guys look at the turd I just shat, doesn't need a watermark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnaplay1647545503 Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 What is the cost for using that image, or what do you think he received once it was settled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/140847125/original.jpg Edited January 11, 2012 by TTQ B4U Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted January 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 What is the cost for using that image, or what do you think he received once it was settled?[/QUOTe] I dont think he ever stated but the eluded amount prior to layer stuff was.under 15k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 :gabe: :gabe: :gabe: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 That photograph is not free http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/10/this-photograph-is-not-free/ About the author: John B. Mueller is a photographer based in Ventura County, California. Visit his website here. http://files.petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/01/notfree_mini.jpg So this was the first sunset I captured in 2012. It cost me $6,612 to take this photo. $12 in gas to go from work to this spot and then home. The camera I took this with cost $2500. The lens was another $1600. The Singh Ray Reverse Neutral Density filter was $210. The Lee Wide-Angle Adapter and Foundation kit was another $200. The Slik Tripod was another $130. The shutter-release was another $60. When I got home, I uploaded it to a computer that cost me $1200, and then I used Lightroom 3 which I got for $200. I then exported it and tinkered with it in Photoshop which costs about $500. 12+2500+1600+210+200+130+60+1200+200+500= $6,612 So if you’re a magazine, website, corporation, sports team, or advertiser who wishes to use this photo, please don’t come and ask to use it for free, or in exchange for credit or “exposure”. You found my photo so obviously I have “exposure”. You have an advertising budget, and this is what it’s for. You obviously don’t expect your writers to work for free, or your secretary, or your boss. No one is going to publish it for free. Just because the picture is digital doesn’t mean it was free to make. As someone mentioned, THIS single photo didn’t cost me $6,612, but if you wanted to create it, from scratch, that is what is involved. So I consider it the replacement value if it’s stolen, or how much my lawyer will send you a bill for if it’s found being used without my permission. If you give your photo away for “credit” then the best possible scenario for you is someone will see your photo, contact you, and ask if they could borrow one of your photos… for credit. Try this… next time you’re at dinner, tell your waiter you’ll tell all your friends how good the service was if he gives you dinner for free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furloaf Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 As noted, the price of the camera and all equipment isn't tied to a single photo, but every photo taken with that equipment. That picture thus costs a fraction of that total cost, no where near $6612. Reasoning so is absurd. An analogy would be a pizza delivery driver insisting on $2000+ per pizza based on how much money he paid for his shitbox beater car he uses to transport the pizza. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted January 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 As noted, the price of the camera and all equipment isn't tied to a single photo, but every photo taken with that equipment. That picture thus costs a fraction of that total cost, no where near $6612. Reasoning so is absurd. An analogy would be a pizza delivery driver insisting on $2000+ per pizza based on how much money he paid for his shitbox beater car he uses to transport the pizza. Its really not absurd when its copyright infringment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 An analogy would be a pizza delivery driver insisting on $2000+ per pizza based on how much money he paid for his shitbox beater car he uses to transport the pizza.No, actually to use that absurd anaology would be to suggest a pizza shop should be charging less for each pizza they make because all the gear they purchased years ago has depreciated over time and is now paid for thus the product produced using it is near worthless WOW. Don't apply for your MBA just yet. :dumb: As noted, the price of the camera and all equipment isn't tied to a single photo, but every photo taken with that equipment. That picture thus costs a fraction of that total cost, no where near $6612. Reasoning so is absurd. Really? So the pics I'm selling today are valued less than my pics from 20yrs ago simply because I've owned my gear and sold stuff for as long as I have? That experience and ownership somehow correlates to their value in court? Again, really? So by that theory, I should be able to pirate Bon Jovi's debut album without much penalty at all since it's been out in circulation for so long http://www.columbusracing.com/forums/../ubb/confused.gif or is it that I should be able to download their latest album with no penalty because the group has been making albums for so long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 So MAKE SURE wherever you're sharing your work, at least turn off the creative commons options I don't see, understand or agree with his point. Maybe if you are doing this as a living and are uptight about no one 'stealing' your photos. I know you and Tim do make money with this. CCL (some of them) DOES NOT give anyone permission to use your image in a for profit situation. CCL specifically states that it does not give that permission. What CCL does is let anyone use it in a not-for-profit situation. So what if someone uses your pic in a not-for-profit situation? Plus, even if you could go after someone in using your pic in a not-for-profit situation, what damages are you likely to get? From what little I know about his case, just what I've read here, his case would have been the same with or with CCL enabled. Maybe the CCL in flicker is one that enables for profit use... I don't know why they would use that one. CCL is nice because it's a well thought out blanket license for those who don't have the money or the time to have lawyers draft up a license specifically for them. I would think you would be better off using CCL than not if what you are worried about is someone using your photos for profit without your permission, since (some) CCL specifically states to NOT use the artwork for profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Automotive Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/431048_3218699228420_1294582135_33378302_1553963097_n.jpg http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/426790_3218691228220_1294582135_33378300_545205863_n.jpg Its pretty easy to screen shot an image then clean it up later with all the technology we have. These photos were just shot this weekend, put on my webpage, and now I find them on facebook today. And there's 3 more so far that I've found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 Because even businesses often can show zero respect. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/28/peter-burks-plentyoffish/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.