|
|
  | 03 May 2012 15:01 |
| grahamsphotography Photographer  Location United Kingdom West Sussex Chichester | Just invoice them your usual fee + a fine for copyright infringment. I did this with someone who was refusing to pay on a pic in a guide, he ended up paying hundreds of pounds for a pic I would have normally charged £50 for. If he does not pay the invoice hit him with a solicitors letter or CCJ. |
| 03 May 2012 15:24 |
| martinscroft Photographer  Location United Kingdom Cheshire | Possession of a digital copy of the image does not prove copyright. They mag is being stupid and deserves to be exposed. Someone there obviously knows better and is simply trying it on. Threaten them if need be and I'm sure they'll stump up a reasonable fee. |
| 03 May 2012 15:50 |
|
| HMansfield Photographer  Location United Kingdom Nottinghamshire | http://www.epuk.org/Opinion/994/stolen-photographs-what-to-do Have a butchers through this. It's got some nice sounding words that have an air of menace about them. |
|
| Everyone knows photographers make up the hottest proportions of Britains single men. - Kater | ||
| 03 May 2012 16:03 |
| Sarge Photographer  Location United Kingdom County Durham |  Quote from AlisterI think you need to brush up on your civil law Case is quite simple. Magazine has breached the OP's copyright and he's entitled to invoice them for use and take them to court if they fail to pay. They have no defence, whatever the model told them. If the magazine wants redress against the model that is their problem. As a publisher they would have known that model likely didn't have permission. In the OP's situation I'd certainly be pursuing them even though I'm a lonely amateur. I have no interest in civil law, only criminal. When i take TF photos (in fact i only take TF photos) i allow the model to use them as she sees fit, just as long as i am credited with their use. I have that wrote on my profile and will tell them that too. If they end up in a mag then so be it, just as long as i am credited. I appreciate the photographer is the owner of copyright and that they have used a copyrighted item (i have never said otherwise), but just thinking of defenses that could arise. Again, thinking outside of the box, what would be the outcome if the model said to the mag 'I took these photos myself' or 'I paid for this shoot and the use of the photos'. Would the courts see in favour of the OP and find the mag guilty in a civil case? Or would it be thrown out, and he would have to start again taking the model to court for her breaching his copyright (or even criminal deception)? How far does a mag need go to verify the legal ownership of a photo? As i said, i dont know as much about civil courts as i do criminal, so maybe you can shed some light on it? It would be interesting to see the correspondance between the mag and model to form a basis. |
| 03 May 2012 16:15 |
| Sarge Photographer Location United Kingdom County Durham | Quote from photomane9 I appreciate that you have not read tthrough the whole thread (not neccessarily the soundest basis from which to wade in with your comments, I suggest), but I have already pointed out that primary infringement is a matter of strict liability, and I am sure you understand what this means. Therefore there is no defence of unknowingly using an image. The burden of proof issue is irrelevant. I guess it may not be the best basis to 'wade in' with my comments, and i am not disagreeing with anyone here, i am just creating a discussion rather than just agreeing totally with everyone else (would be a pretty uninteresting world if we were all just yes men). I have no doubt that he owns copyright and that it has been infringed, but there are always 2 sides to a story and without the other it is easy just to agree. It would be interesting to hear their argument. I would probably take it to court too if like the OP i felt THAT strongly about it, but i just do photography for fun so wouldnt get that upset really. Still, it will be interesting to see what he gets at court as it may make me think twice if i do see any of mine in print  |
 | 03 May 2012 17:23 |
| IMM_Photography Photographer Location United Kingdom Fife Dunfermline | The current crop of lads mags rely on models sending in their photos for self promotion, with no questions asked regarding ownership, let alone copyright. They usually don't pay the models knowing that they will be more than happy with being published, so they get innundated with loads of free content for them to pick and choose from. The magazines know that they are printing the images in breach of copyright and still they publish them knowing that it will only be a very small percentage of images that attract any attention from the photographer, ie, the copyright holder. They also know that a smaller percentage will get followed through with invoices and further letters etc, so they will only ever end up paying for an image very infrequently. This method ends up costing them a lot less in the long run than having to research copyright for every image they get and paying the correct fee for each image. They know the laws better than any of us, and would always pay up way before it got anywhere near formal legal proceedings, its just their methods, accept an almost infinate amount of free images and pay a slightly higher fee if and when they are caught out by someone who doesn't just roll over with the magazines story of them not knowing about the copyright and that it has to be taken up with the model. My advise, and I have had to do it a few times now and always been paid, is hit them with an invoice and follow it up with an additional inflated invoice if not settled. I used to go out drinking with a picture sub editor and the above is how he told me it happens and how he advised I deal with it when it happened. |
| 03 May 2012 17:48 |
| oceanova Photographer  Location United Kingdom Essex | Quote from IMM_Photography The current crop of lads mags rely on models sending in their photos for self promotion, with no questions asked regarding ownership, let alone copyright. They usually don't pay the models knowing that they will be more than happy with being published, so they get innundated with loads of free content for them to pick and choose from. The magazines know that they are printing the images in breach of copyright and still they publish them knowing that it will only be a very small percentage of images that attract any attention from the photographer, ie, the copyright holder. They also know that a smaller percentage will get followed through with invoices and further letters etc, so they will only ever end up paying for an image very infrequently. This method ends up costing them a lot less in the long run than having to research copyright for every image they get and paying the correct fee for each image. They know the laws better than any of us, and would always pay up way before it got anywhere near formal legal proceedings, its just their methods, accept an almost infinate amount of free images and pay a slightly higher fee if and when they are caught out by someone who doesn't just roll over with the magazines story of them not knowing about the copyright and that it has to be taken up with the model. My advise, and I have had to do it a few times now and always been paid, is hit them with an invoice and follow it up with an additional inflated invoice if not settled. I used to go out drinking with a picture sub editor and the above is how he told me it happens and how he advised I deal with it when it happened. Totally agree with this, I was in a situation with Tesco, people advised me not to take them on but the small claims court is so simple and if you are happy with the advice you have recieved is good then follow it through. I'm not an activist but I hate seeing corporation bullying, which is what you are a victim of. I still smile getting £3850 out of tesco |
| 03 May 2012 22:00 |
| Sarge Photographer Location United Kingdom County Durham | That is interesting and makes complete good business sense (if not a little bit cheeky and unfair). There is a saying in the NE that goes 'a shy bairne gets no sweets', so definately worth sending an invoice and even threatening with court. You wont get anything if you dont  |
 | 04 May 2012 04:53 |
|
| skymouse Photographer  Location United Kingdom London London | One thing's for sure, there's dosh to be be made if you're a lawyer  |
|
| "Start every day with a smile and get it over with." — W.C. Fields. | ||
| 04 May 2012 06:42 |
|
| PeterH Photographer  Location United Kingdom South Yorkshire | Quote from Sarge How far does a mag need go to verify the legal ownership of a photo? From the back of my mind, (it was in the 80's I went to college and did photographic law as one of the modules) I think the phrase "reasonable attempts" crops up. I'd have thought that by now most magazines would ask models to sign an indemnity against copyright claims on self submitted, just to cover their arses. But maybe it more cost effective to pay out with those who know waht they're doing, fob off those that don't, and get away scott-free with those who never find out. And of course, there's always the problem of actually defining what such a loose term as 'self promotion' means. I think it's perectly reasonable for a model to send free pics to Nuts under the self promotion banner. (I don't agree with it, just the premise) People really need to tie down the definitions ot their usage limitations to stop this sort of thing happening. |
|
| "I am the one who knocks" - Walter White | ||
|
