Posted by Ian Butler on January 19, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Hi all
Bit of another copyright question for those who know. The answers could be useful for other users here aswell so I thought I'd post it here.
I have just picked up the local paper to find that about 10 images have been used of mine without acknowledgement to myself.
The photographs have come from a company I used to work for (I said this company could use them externally as long as they acknowledge my work alongside the photograph or at some point during the article).
To confirm, I worked for this company in a non-photographic way and used all my own equipment to take the pictures and outside of work time.
They have sent these images up to the local newspaper to illustrate the article they have submitted for print.
I've spoken to the manager of the company I used to work for and they have said that they told the paper that they could use these images if they acknowledged the photographer.
Is this a copyright breach (as theoretically I could be losing work through readers not knowing who took the photographs).
I've sent my pictures personally to the said paper in the past, and they have acknowledged me but haven't paid for the images (apparently they never pay for images because their moto is that they could just send one of there in house photographers to the photograph the subject (non-nature) for free).
Is there anything I can do with this?
Is there a disclaimer I can ask my ex-company to use so that the newspaper have to acknowledge me?
Maybe im blowing things out of proportion.
Any thoughts would be welcome.
Regards
Ian
Posted by Barrie Harwood on January 19, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Hi Ian
There is an assumption that copyright always belongs to the photographer unless they choose to give it up. That is not true.
If you take photographs for an company whilst you are employee of that company (regardless of the capacity you were employed in), then copyright can, and usually does, belong to that employer.
The fact you used your own equipment and did it in your time is probably not relevant.
It's a slightly unusual situation but I think you are onto a non-starter from the copyright point of view.
Regarding acknowledging the photographer, the newspaper does not have to acknowledge anybody.. there is no automatic right to a by-line (I wish there was).
I'd notch this one up to experience to be honest
Posted by Mike Smith on January 19, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Is this a copyright breach? - nope - but for slightly different reasons to Barries view.
You seem to have given your company full release to use your images for free provided they acknowledge you were the photographer. You did not stipulate that they could not forward to the newspaper (or anyone else) without your prior permission. (ie you did not take the photos in the course of your employment but have given full release for them to use them under a specific term)
The company notified the newspaper they should credit you with the images which they (the newspaper) have failed to do, this is a breach of terms of the supply between the newspaper and the company, not a breach between you and the newspaper. There is no direct link between you and the newspaper. The company have acted in accordance with the existing arrangement by asking you be credited as the photographer.
You cannot enforce a request to be accredited - what are the "damages" you are seeking to recover under any breach of agreement terms? Once printed thats it. You don't earn a living as a photographer so no reputational loss, there is no royalty arrangement breach so no financial loss.
This is why Pros get so upset by people supplying images for free - it has not only greatly eroded any image sale capacity for them but totally weakened their market position/powers with the publishers.
Posted by Ian Butler on January 19, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Thanks for the above.
Mike... I am a professional freelance photographer and my sole income comes from the photographs I take. What gave you the impression i wasn't ???
I know that nothing can be done with the photographs that have been published. The question was to find out if there is anything I can do in the future (the disclaimer) to stop this from happening in the future (to me and others).
The photographs that were used were not taken at all during the period I was working for them. In fact they were probably 12 months before and 6 months after and were taken under my company so I own the copyright.
The company I worked for was a charity, thats why I gave them some of the pictures and said they could use them for free as long as they acknowledged me as the photographer (hopefully getting more work from the published pictures further boosting my reputation!!)
Like Mike says, I suppose its the breach of contract between the company and the paper which is fair enough.
Ignoring that the fact this has happened, what can be done to stop this from happening in the future?
In this case, the newspaper has let the charity down and they're the ones that need to pursue a grump with the paper. You doing it will only lead to the paper thinking you're a pain in the a** and ignoring you even more in the future.
Ignoring that the fact this has happened, what can be done to stop this from happening in the future?
Supply an explicit 'license' with all images you supply to anyone (even 'freebies'), that way they have a piece of paper that they (and you!) can refer back to to find out what rights they have. On that license state the T&C's of supply and what rights you have given to them.
In future you might want to consider limiting the rights for publishing to their own commisioned/printed materials/marketing materials - ie those that they themselves design and print/publish. Don't grant use to any 3rd party (eg paper/mag) and state as much in the license.
From what you've said, it sounds like the company simply provided info and photos to the paper and that the paper wrote the article - if the company had originated the article instead, then you'd probably have been credited as you requested. In all honesty, I do sometimes wonder how papers & mags manage to co-ordinate all the articles/images and keep track of authors & credit correctly - it must be a total nightmare for them!
The other thing to mention is many if not most newspapers rely on software to strip out the relevant IPTC fields they are interested in and the sub-ed will utilise these for any by-lines (as well as for the captions etc).
Therefore if this is incomplete, regardless of any other requests or instructions, the compositing software will not supply a by-line to the sub-ed and so none will be published
I would say that you should let this one go but make sure that no one gives a third party your pictures in the future. Once someone else starts distributing your work all sorts of things can happen. I would also always charge for your pictures as well, you can give the fee to the charity if you want.
Discussion
6 repliesBit of another copyright question for those who know. The answers could be useful for other users here aswell so I thought I'd post it here.
I have just picked up the local paper to find that about 10 images have been used of mine without acknowledgement to myself.
The photographs have come from a company I used to work for (I said this company could use them externally as long as they acknowledge my work alongside the photograph or at some point during the article).
To confirm, I worked for this company in a non-photographic way and used all my own equipment to take the pictures and outside of work time.
They have sent these images up to the local newspaper to illustrate the article they have submitted for print.
I've spoken to the manager of the company I used to work for and they have said that they told the paper that they could use these images if they acknowledged the photographer.
Is this a copyright breach (as theoretically I could be losing work through readers not knowing who took the photographs).
I've sent my pictures personally to the said paper in the past, and they have acknowledged me but haven't paid for the images (apparently they never pay for images because their moto is that they could just send one of there in house photographers to the photograph the subject (non-nature) for free).
Is there anything I can do with this?
Is there a disclaimer I can ask my ex-company to use so that the newspaper have to acknowledge me?
Maybe im blowing things out of proportion.
Any thoughts would be welcome.
Regards
Ian
There is an assumption that copyright always belongs to the photographer unless they choose to give it up. That is not true.
If you take photographs for an company whilst you are employee of that company (regardless of the capacity you were employed in), then copyright can, and usually does, belong to that employer.
The fact you used your own equipment and did it in your time is probably not relevant.
It's a slightly unusual situation but I think you are onto a non-starter from the copyright point of view.
Regarding acknowledging the photographer, the newspaper does not have to acknowledge anybody.. there is no automatic right to a by-line (I wish there was).
I'd notch this one up to experience to be honest
You seem to have given your company full release to use your images for free provided they acknowledge you were the photographer. You did not stipulate that they could not forward to the newspaper (or anyone else) without your prior permission. (ie you did not take the photos in the course of your employment but have given full release for them to use them under a specific term)
The company notified the newspaper they should credit you with the images which they (the newspaper) have failed to do, this is a breach of terms of the supply between the newspaper and the company, not a breach between you and the newspaper. There is no direct link between you and the newspaper. The company have acted in accordance with the existing arrangement by asking you be credited as the photographer.
You cannot enforce a request to be accredited - what are the "damages" you are seeking to recover under any breach of agreement terms? Once printed thats it. You don't earn a living as a photographer so no reputational loss, there is no royalty arrangement breach so no financial loss.
This is why Pros get so upset by people supplying images for free - it has not only greatly eroded any image sale capacity for them but totally weakened their market position/powers with the publishers.
Mike... I am a professional freelance photographer and my sole income comes from the photographs I take. What gave you the impression i wasn't ???
I know that nothing can be done with the photographs that have been published. The question was to find out if there is anything I can do in the future (the disclaimer) to stop this from happening in the future (to me and others).
The photographs that were used were not taken at all during the period I was working for them. In fact they were probably 12 months before and 6 months after and were taken under my company so I own the copyright.
The company I worked for was a charity, thats why I gave them some of the pictures and said they could use them for free as long as they acknowledged me as the photographer (hopefully getting more work from the published pictures further boosting my reputation!!)
Like Mike says, I suppose its the breach of contract between the company and the paper which is fair enough.
Ignoring that the fact this has happened, what can be done to stop this from happening in the future?
Supply an explicit 'license' with all images you supply to anyone (even 'freebies'), that way they have a piece of paper that they (and you!) can refer back to to find out what rights they have. On that license state the T&C's of supply and what rights you have given to them.
In future you might want to consider limiting the rights for publishing to their own commisioned/printed materials/marketing materials - ie those that they themselves design and print/publish. Don't grant use to any 3rd party (eg paper/mag) and state as much in the license.
From what you've said, it sounds like the company simply provided info and photos to the paper and that the paper wrote the article - if the company had originated the article instead, then you'd probably have been credited as you requested. In all honesty, I do sometimes wonder how papers & mags manage to co-ordinate all the articles/images and keep track of authors & credit correctly - it must be a total nightmare for them!
Therefore if this is incomplete, regardless of any other requests or instructions, the compositing software will not supply a by-line to the sub-ed and so none will be published