Unauthorised Usage of Images
Posted on: Wed, 09/22/2010 - 11:20
Unauthorised Usage of Images
Hi everyone,
I have a sports website that has used 6 of my images without prior approval having lifted them from another site.
In addition to this, they have had previous history with myself over some images appearing in a magazine and again without approval.
Am I right in thinking I can charge them up to 3 times the going rate for such blatant infringement?
Any help would be welcomed.
I stand by my original comments. Readers can make up their own minds whether an authoritative copy is worthwhile.
As has already been said, disputes over authorship of photos are vanishingly rare. In 12 years operation of the EPUK list (1,000 professional members) I cannot recall a single instance where your service would have assisted at all, and EPUK deals daily with infringements. Nor is the difficulty of proving ownership a problem that has figured in any submissions to Gowers, Lammy, IPO or Hargreaves, by photographic representative organisations. It is simply a non-issue among many serious and real issues : lack of attribution, removal of metadata and orphaning, coercive rights grabbing contracts, and an awful lot of infringement out of ignorance or intent to avoid payment. Fundamentally UK law is feeble both at asserting owner's copyright and deterring misuse, and redress is usually cost-ineffective. Nothing Future Copyright offers addresses these issues, as far as I can see.
Unfortunately photography is such a prolific medium that any conceivable registration system presents a challenging amount of data entry : there has to be a cost/benefit calculation. I know that passing off and argument over authorship is a significant problem with other media, especially scripts and musical composition, and there such a registration service seems a sensible proposition. But if you want to make a business case for the need for registration of photos, hard evidence would be more persuasive than assertions that I don't know what I am talking about. Even if I am as prejudiced as you think, please note Scott Gair's comments. He is an IP lawyer, who would surely appreciate any ability of Future Copyright to assist his work.
One factual error : USCO registration fees enable batches of work of unlimited number per single filing. The only constraint is that images must be filed within time limits. Used sensibly this makes the cost very low indeed, enabling all work produced to be filed in a few batches each year. USCO registration is irrelevant unless you are expecting infringements within US jurisdiction, so few UK photographers bother.
©A admin
Future Copyright
In response to admin's somewhat negative viewpoint 16/12/10, 'Are we missing something? Yes - your entry is based on some inaccurate research and facts:
Copyright, under the International Berne Convention is a naturally acquired right - there is absolutely no requirement to 'register' any work. An artist may however choose to do so to provide more substantial evidence/proof. The US copyright office is a government institution only (there is no such thing as an official copyright office/service) - there is no obligation to register your work whatsoever unless it is in the commercial domain or is published in which case the US copyright office will require you to register in order to administer royalties.
As most of the world lives outside of the US! - not everyone will choose to use the US copyright office and in fact the complete range of services and liabilities its offers is not universally valid to non-US citizens. The UK copyright service, also cited by admin, is a private company that offers a similar file repository service - there is nothing wrong with this so why again be negative if it helps to safeguard an artists copyright? - both models act similarly to the historic notion of copyright evidence of lodging your work with a solicitor or bank - this advice is in fact given on the UK' intellectual property office website . Such file repositories provide an adequate service but can very expensive - the US copyright office at c.$30-40 a pop, maybe out of price range for an amateur photographer - especially if you are prolific in your shoots.
Future Copyright, to set the record straight, is NOT a file repository service like the US copyright office or the UK copyright service company as admin incorrectly assumes - it is in fact a self administered ‘copyright system’ operated and controlled entirely by a creative artist to professionally library index their original work into their own secure and accessible copyright portfolio - an artist's work is made indelible and is locked as a tangible/fixed version in accordance with the international Berne Convention which then acts as prima facie evidence in a court of law. Future Copyright also has a legal affiliate which is able to offer independent legal support for artists who choose to use Future Copyright.
The terms and conditions admin ‘we did not like’ are in fact standard text Ts and C sas supplied by the UK Government’s Business Link website! - which provides support to small to medium enterprises - these are standard format terms and conditions that are advised to be used on websites and can be found on many websites. The Ts and Cs on this site also similarly absolve copyright action for certain liabilities.
Admin mentions USCO, C-registry and Picscout - there are in fact many copyright models out there - file repositories, creative commons, icopyright, fingerprint encryption, watermarking etc - so in response to last post being a ‘it’s a plug’ - it was actually intended as a post in response to an artist who needed help and advice and not an advertisement. Isn’t this site to provide positive help and support? In the same way reference to USCO etc may be considered a plug or commercial affiliation by copyright action – the intent of course is to offer links that may provide solutions to a query.
My advice is to photographers is that there are a number of copyright models - see which one best suits you and fits your pocket (they all have plus and minuses) - the bottom line is that copyright is automatically yours - use a system or service that helps you more definitively prove this – that’s all.
Future Copyright is designed by artists for artists – it is a proactive sponsor of the creative arts and in this last year has sponsored the London Short Film Festival, Producers Sessions Live, the British Independant Film Festival and horror film festivals, the PhotoRadar ‘capturing the light’ photography event at westonbirt arboretum – additionally Future Copyright is affiliated with the UK’s Film Festival Guild and is a professional partner of the Sound and Audio Engineering (SAE) Institute London - in addition it runs a series of free educational seminars on copyright and offers free monthly newsletters on useful copyright information. Not many copyright solutions offer this level of active and FREE support to creative artists and Photographers – Future Copyright does.
Hopefully that answers the 'are we missing something' bit. To all the photographers - that read this site, and similarly there are a number of other good copyright info and advice sites out there you may wish to check out in preference, then I wish you good luck with your creative ventures. If you need general advice on copyright please feel free to contact www.futurecopyright.com or read the newsletters/follow on twitter/join the media groups on linkedin – if that is a plug then its because I am also an artist (songwriter not photographer – but hey, photographers are cool!) that uses Future Copyright and hasn’t just made a negative non-researched notion about it.
Admin – I am sorry that you may have got out the wrong side of bed on your post! The copyright action site is useful, even the bits I don’t like or think are better on other copyright information sites I won’t chose to be negative about – what purpose does that achieve? I would ask you to have a considered rethink about Future Copyright because it is a unique and usable copyright evidence and management system that is simple and effective and not an outmoded black box repository that I think you amy have mistakenly took it for. It is used by 1000s of creative artists - including photographers!
Please keep up your good work.
"I have never come across a situation whereby the infringers disputes the ownership of the copyright in an image."
There was one case back in the days of B&W film that I know of involving the photographer Andrew Besley. The photograph was of a huge wave crashing over the Mission Chapel in Porthleven, Cornwall. It was syndicated all over the world by an agent to whom Andrew sent the original negative. The agent did not pay Andrew and when Andrew took him to court he disputed ownership and claimed the image himself. In court Andrew proved ownership by producing the adjacent frames.
A few years ago there was a long thread on the BJP forum about how this would be proved with a digital file. Possession of the RAW file would be one way and also adjacent RAW frames.
One of the most interesting French cases involved a photograph of the moon stripped into an ad for a French car. The ad agency denied using the image on the grounds that all pictures of the moon show the same side so are therefore all the same. The photographer called an expert witness who showed that the moon wobbles a bit and the only place that would have shown that view was the far north of Canada on a certain date. The photographer produced his motel receipts from nearby and won the case.
Working at the "low end" of the market selling prints to transport enthusiasts and supplying direct to nostalgia magazines, I used to come across the problems of unauthorised use quite regularly. However, since I put my full catalogue of over 80,000 rights owned photos on my web site the practice has decreased. www.transportphotos.com
This is probably helped by the fact that I also publish my rate card with T&Cs. These include "Use of a NA3T photo without obtaining the necessary licence may render the User liable for an amount no greater than twice the full NA3T rate for the application in which it was used plus recovery costs and any third party damages. We strongly urge Users to be cautious of all images claiming to be from a private “collection”, “library” or “archive” or submitted in digital format."
Unauthorised web publication is normally by "single subject experts" who don't know any better so a take down notice suffices.
Based on the above, I invoice publications using my stuff without licence and that includes the 100% surcharge - always payable 31 days after which I apply interest at base +2%. When they bitch I simply request Trading Standards (The body officially tasked with copyright enforcement) to drop them a letter. Works every time and if it doesn't there is always the Small Claims Court.
Hope this is of use.
Bob Hobbs
Scott - or in fact right here in the legal section of the links : http://copyrightaction.com/link/mayo-wynne-baxter-solicitors :-)
©A admin
I am a solicitor based in Sussex, and I have acted for numerous professional photographers in respect of copyright infringement claims. I have never come across a situation whereby the infringers disputes the ownership of the copyright in an image.
As for whether or not you are entitled to claim 3 times the going rate for that image as damages for the infringement, there is no hard and fast calculation/formula, and each case must be taken on its own merits. As a rough guide, 2-3 times the value of the image is not a million miles away.
Happy to have a brief free telephone chat to offer some general advice about this if it would help. I work for Mayo Wynne Baxter. If you google us, you will find us very quickly.
Hope this helps,
Scott
@Rich - I would have to disagree, it's a plug.
Dispute over who is the author and copyright holder is rare with photos. Passing off work is common enough, there seem to be quite a few photographers who think presenting someone else's (better) work as their own is a good wheeze. But I've never heard of anyone arguing once challenged. Possession of raw or high resolution original files and the forensic ability to relate a given file to the fingerprint of a specific sensor seems in practice to be adequate proof. Only the truly stupid would claim to have taken a photo that they did not.
Besides, your charge of £3.75 for a single typical raw file is entirely prohibitive, by at least a couple of orders of magnitude, for such a profligate medium. The registration fees for a shoot would be greater than the likely earnings at today's rates.
For other sorts of documents, perhaps high-value oft-plagiarised works such as book manuscripts, or scripts for movie or theatre, your service may be useful. But for photos, we don't see it helping.
We also don't like your T&C's much. Surely if the service is to be any use to anyone, you must stand behind it?
You also are not the first. The "UK Copyright Service" (merely a private company trying to appear official) has been offering similar for many years.
The fact is that UK damages available for the vast majority of infringements against photographers are in the £50-£350 range, and barely worth suing for except as a matter of principle. And there is no usable mechanism at all for tackling infringers outside UK jurisdiction. No additional damages arise from use of these registration schemes, unlike registration with USCO (US Copyright Office), where up to $150,000 + costs may be awarded for infringements (within US jurisdiction) of a registered work.
We would suggest that photographers wishing to register their work would do far better to register with USCO and also with C-registry, whose authoritative tracing of ownership includes Picscout image recognition.
Or are we missing something?
©A admin
The problem comes with being able to show clear demonstration of your copyright and especially for digital creative works.
Copyright is your natural right and you might want to write to the offending site simply explaining that you own the copyright in the photos and either request they remove them or you're happy to come to some sort of financial arrangement for their use - otherwise you may pursue legal action - this may be enough to do the trick.
Future Copyright's Personal Copyright System (TM) www.futurecopyright.com enables you to authenticate your copyright very clearly for situations such as this. Your work is fully evidenced and accessible, you can send copyright cerification and there is legal affiliation for acting on infringement cases - all under your own control. This is not intended to be a plug, but hopefully a real help to artists to easily defend and manage their copyright.
Hope this helps
Rich
Post new comment