Times of London Stole my picture!

Ok, so the Times of London has posted one of my pics from my flickr site on their website without my permission ...

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle3105751.ece

I'm Jeremy Payne and that's my photograph ...

Any advice on how to handle this?

Thanks!

Interesting... Well at least they credited you and where they got it. But I see you have set the copyright to "All Rights Reserved", so...

If you're not happy with them using it, give the Times Online legal dept a call or email... Not sure if they would offer any monetary compensation, but I would suspect they would take it off if someone starts grumbling about legal action...

Ok, so the Times of London has posted one of my pics from my flickr site on their website without my permission ...

 

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle3105751.ece

 

I'm Jeremy Payne and that's my photograph ...

 

Any advice on how to handle this?

 

Thanks!

First I would take a screen grab/save as PDF to have a record of this.

Then you write a letter to the Times of London, usually the Legal Deprtment, here is the list of contact addresses, did not see one for the legal department though but you can try a general one

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and...ces/contact_us/

You can start with an email stating that they used the picture without your permission and then state what you would like to happen. Remove it, get paid or just remind them that they should not be doing this type of thing and enjoy the photo credit, though the article is kind of disparaging about the technique (I thought the photo was cool myself.) Of course there is the issue that you probably have a bit of an issue in terms of posting an image from a Ranger Game and there may be issues there.

--------------------

Something like this (the tame starting off nice version, you could make it more legalese if you want but they probably will respond being a reputable company):

Gentlemen:

It has been bought to my attention that you have used a photograph taken by me at the following URL:

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle3105751.ece

As the author acknowledges in the article, and as evidenced in the photo credit, this photograph was taken by me and and at no point did I authorize the use of the photograph on your website.

Please have the photo removed from the website and confirm that is has been removed immediately.

Kind regards

_________________

First I would take a screen grab/save as PDF to have a record of this.

 

Then you write a letter to the Times of London, usually the Legal Deprtment, here is the list of contact addresses, did not see one for the legal department though but you can try a general one

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and...ces/contact_us/

 

You can start with an email stating that they used the picture without your permission and then state what you would like to happen. Remove it, get paid or just remind them that they should not be doing this type of thing and enjoy the photo credit, though the article is kind of disparaging about the technique (I thought the photo was cool myself.) Of course there is the issue that you probably have a bit of an issue in terms of posting an image from a Ranger Game and there may be issues there.

--------------------

Something like this (the tame starting off nice version, you could make it more legalese if you want but they probably will respond being a reputable company):

 

Gentlemen:

 

It has been bought to my attention that you have used a photograph taken by me at the following URL:

 

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle3105751.ece

 

As the author acknowledges in the article, and as evidenced in the photo credit, this photograph was taken by me and and at no point did I authorize the use of the photograph on your website.

 

Please have the photo removed from the website and confirm that is has been removed immediately.

 

Kind regards

_________________

I dropped them a note ... let's see ...

I dropped them a note ... let's see ...

I invited them to ask me in the future and even pay me ... and they apologized and removed the picture.

You should still invoice them. Apologies is not an excuse for shoddy research esp when it's use without permission.

I invited them to ask me in the future and even pay me ... and they apologized and removed the picture.

Glad it worked out okay. Figured it would, sometimes errors happen and a good company will make it right.

You should still invoice them. Apologies is not an excuse for shoddy research esp when it's use without permission.

I wouldn't invoice them when it is a picture that probably should not have been posted originally anyway (Ranger Game)

Glad it worked out okay. Figured it would, sometimes errors happen and a good company will make it right.

I wouldn't invoice them when it is a picture that probably should not have been posted originally anyway (Ranger Game)

Good point! Thanks all!

Um

doesn't flickr have privacy settings to stop you from letting this happen ... and also say something about the fact that photos on flickr can be used elsewhere as long as linked back to where they came from ?

I know Yahoo (which owns flickr) uses peoples flickr photos all the time in their main portal.

Um

 

doesn't flickr have privacy settings to stop you from letting this happen ... and also say something about the fact that photos on flickr can be used elsewhere as long as linked back to where they came from ?

 

I know Yahoo (which owns flickr) uses peoples flickr photos all the time in their main portal.

There is a setting to disable access to photos via the 3rd party API, but I don't think you can turn off HTTP access like that.

Regardless, my copyrighted material is mine and all rights are reserved. A for-profit enterprise used my image to sell ad space ... that is not "fair use". (putting aside the fact that I had no right to commercially exploit my copyrighted image due to my lack of license from the NHL and NY Rangers.)

http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html

there are the terms of service., which everyone I believe agrees to when they choose to use flickr.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/f...9881735928.html

there was that suit against Virgin not so long ago. I don't know what happened, but my understanding is through the terms of service Flickr photos a fair game if linked correctly even fopr commercial use .. depending on the Creative Commons Licensing.

It's tricky areas from what I understand especially the way the TOS reads.

http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html

 

there are the terms of service., which everyone I believe agrees to when they choose to use flickr.

 

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/f...9881735928.html

there was that suit against Virgin not so long ago. I don't know what happened, but my understanding is through the terms of service Flickr photos a fair game if linked correctly even fopr commercial use .. depending on the Creative Commons Licensing.

 

It's tricky areas from what I understand especially the way the TOS reads.

Sorry, but I disagree completely ... I didn't grant a creative commons license ... I indicated the work was copyrighted and all rights were reserved.

Under the TOS, Flickr and Yahoo! have some rights to use my work - on THEIR sites. The Times of London had absolutely no right to use my work without my permission. Flickr can also make my work available though the 3rd party webservices API, and I have the right to turn off that access globally and also the right to ask any individual firm using that API to remove my copyrighted materials if I so choose ... go read the Flickr FAQs on the subject ...

Found an example of the API access picking up my pics based on tags on Flickr ...

http://www.photobongo.com/nightdive.html

From my experience in journalism, I'd say Times online should be making you a goodwill payment for using your image without permission. Because they have already complied with your request and apologised, you shouldn't expect too much (it's barely worth organising the wire transfer), but if I were you I would request they pay £100 to a charity of your choice. It's worth a go.

From my experience in journalism, I'd say Times online should be making you a goodwill payment for using your image without permission. Because they have already complied with your request and apologised, you shouldn't expect too much (it's barely worth organising the wire transfer), but if I were you I would request they pay £100 to a charity of your choice. It's worth a go.

I remember seeing a fly-on-the-wall documentary about a regional freelance news photographer here in the UK and as a matter of routine he would scan through the papers everyday looking for his photos. They showed some footage of him phoning the picture desk at one of the nationals where he told them they'd used one of his pictures without permission and they immediately replied "OK, well we obviously owe for that" and he got paid a standard freelancer rate.

Clearly this isn't quite the same as Jeremy's situation and he has every right to feel aggrieved but I suspect the picture desks at national newspapers are working flat out and don't have time to check every image they receive. I don't know the business very well but it strikes me that, rightly or wrongly, this is probably a standard industry practice.

The way the game works, you're supposed to ask permission. What if you've got some political or ethical objection to the company that has appropriated your image? And if the photographer never checks, the company would obviously get away without paying at all. That's why, in cases such as this, a payment of more than standard rate would be expected. However, because it is a website rather than an actual printed publication, the standard rates are probably rock-bottom anyway. The website probably sources most of its images from free sources, or sources it hopes are free of charge. However, mistakes do happen.

From my experience in journalism, I'd say Times online should be making you a goodwill payment for using your image without permission. Because they have already complied with your request and apologised, you shouldn't expect too much (it's barely worth organising the wire transfer), but if I were you I would request they pay £100 to a charity of your choice. It's worth a go.

Again, not a good idea to do that, you could get a letter like the following:

__________________

Dear Mr. Payne:

We were in receipt of your email of last week in which you notified us that we had posted a photograph taken by you that was used without your permission and the photograph has been promptly removed.

We have now received your email of today in which you now have requested payment for the use and that such payment shall be made to you or a charity that you designate. Please advised that though we may be willling to discuss this and a payment, due to the nature of the material of a professional hockey game, including the reproduction or other use of the logos, may be subject to the rights of the NHL and its member teams.

Accordingly, please forward the written consent of the NHL and the Rangers to us for review, or if you like, we will be happy to contact the NHL on your behalf to ascertain whether your posting of the images on Flickr was proper or whether volated the terms and conditions of the license granted by your ticket to attend the game and whether such use would result in the revocation of your season tickets if you are a season ticket holder.

Regards

Times Of London

__________________

Do I think they will do that? Probably not. Do I think that the use of the photos despite the boilerplate of Yahoo! and Flickr and the sites of similar ilk, regardless of the NHL issue is wrong? Very much so (and I think many of these sites in general lead to things I am not fond of despite some of the broad licensing schemes to try to resolve issues with YouTube and the rest.)

But the bottom line is that if you watch shows you will see logos and the rest blurred out and most sporting events and leagues do have restrictions on the use of material from those events. Sometimes it may not make sense (i.e., of course the Rangers and the rest want promotion) but they need to protect their assets.

Again, not justifying the action of the Times, and in fact they may just pay some money over, particularly to a charity for a small amount, but sometimes you have to know when to hold and know when to fold. And when you know there are two big issues, namely (a) Yahoo/Flickr terms may grant the rights and (B) the photo itself has some potentially inherent pitfalls, that pursuing the issue may not result in a "win", can open a can of worms and truthfully places someone in the position of becoming more of a nuisance as oppossed to a person with a legitimate beef, well I would say it is time to fold.

Again, not saying that Jeremy is wrong or that he is being a nuisance, but at some point the crawling too far out on the ice will cause it to break when he already got what he wanted. (So it seems.)

It's worth a go.

I sued the Daily Telegraph. The editor phoned me on the day of the case and asked if I was really going to court. He said that no-one sued them. I was awarded £2500. Get to know the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988. Then you can fight you own case and avoid lawyer's fees.

But the bottom line is that if you watch shows you will see logos and the rest blurred out and most sporting events and leagues do have restrictions on the use of material from those events. Sometimes it may not make sense (i.e., of course the Rangers and the rest want promotion) but they need to protect their assets.

Not exactly right. If I remember correctly, NHL uses Getty as the official photographer. If Jeremy offers to sell his pictures online or anywhere else, he MAY have problems with Getty (depending on the exclusive rights of the event). However, the grey area is large. If Jeremy took his picture and sells it to a newspaper or magazine privately, that's ok. He just can't publicly advertise them for sale.

Now the copyright issue: the image sponsor sites may include rights to use the photos on their website, but they cannot sell it or license it to another party. That is Jeremy's right to do so. So in this case, Jeremy has a right to ask for compensation for copyright infringement (AND NOT for the picture itself).

Of course this isn't legal advice.

Not exactly right. If I remember correctly, NHL uses Getty as the official photographer. If Jeremy offers to sell his pictures online or anywhere else, he MAY have problems with Getty (depending on the exclusive rights of the event). However, the grey area is large. If Jeremy took his picture and sells it to a newspaper or magazine privately, that's ok. He just can't publicly advertise them for sale.

I think Getty does do the NHL and some others, so yes there is yet another issue there which can pose an issue to Jeremy. In general there are prohibitions, both with respect to the authorized people, such as Getty and the AP, and also people attending events on what they can do with the photos. There are also issues tangential to First Amendment rights, namely whether the items and newsworthy, in addition to the license granted to attend the event and prohibitions in order to be able to exercise the rights and privileges under the license - namely attending the game. There have been some cases regarding the right to access.

As to selling versus advertising I think you are touching also on matters similar to right of privacy/use in trade? Not quite sure what you were referring to in terms of advertising.

And yeah the logos being blanked out is sometimes also just protecting product placement in addition to the legal department requesting logos being cleared

Now the copyright issue: the image sponsor sites may include rights to use the photos on their website, but they cannot sell it or license it to another party.

Though there are issues of whether adequate consideration or whether the terms and conditions in the site are clear, if the terms and conditions to post to a include the right for the site to sell or license the image to others, then there is a right granted to do so. (I did not step through all the provisions of the sites in play right now.) Happens all the time and you see it even with agreements when submitting images to magazines. Personally I think trying to grab all those rights is ...ummmm...place a word here that would probably get me banned

That is Jeremy's right to do so. So in this case, Jeremy has a right to ask for compensation for copyright infringement (AND NOT for the picture itself)..

A very fine line there to draw (and correct in as much as Jeremy has the copyright since I do not think any license to attend an event has ever tried to claim copyright) but as mentioned earlier could be more problems than it is worth. If someone is going to sue/make a claim the first thing the lawyer will do is try to make it go away. A nuisance price and a check may just be cut by the company. Catch the lawyer on a bad day, step too far or the company decides they have to make a policy in general, and the lawyer will bring the other cards into play. (Not that I think that the Times or Getty or the NHL will make Jeremy the poster child for the issue.)

Overall, IMHO, it shakes out like this:

1.) Jeremey attended an event pursuant to a license (ticket)

2.) The license contains provisions as to what a holder may or may not do.

3.) What a license holder may or may not do is subject to some discussion.

4.) Third parties (Getty) were granted rights to do some of the things that Jeremy may or may not have rights to do.

5.) The NHL, the Rangers and the rest have certain rights in their assets

6.) Jeremy initially has the copyright in the photograph.

7.) Though Jeremy has the copyrights in the photograph, he may or may not have rights to do certain things with the photographs.

8.) By posting images to Flickr to host images Jeremy may or may not have transferrred/granted some rights to the sites

9.) The Times Of London may or may not have used the photos properly in the context of the Flickr rules.

10.) The Times immediately removed the images upon learning of the issue.

I do not think anyone is going to make a case out of this at this time, but you never know. Would the Times pay some money? Maybe just because it is a nuisance. And if the Times Legal Department gets enough of these complaints, legal will probably make sure to reiterate to everyone at the times what to do and not do. (Which is a good thing). They simply do not have time to deal with the B.S. that will flow from people plucking pictures off the net. At some in time, however, someone up above may want an actual answer to this (meaning marketing executive VP gets this in their head that they cannot live without this ability to pluck photos) at which time the Times (or other company) may delve more into the nitty gritty and make a case out of it.

I do think that it is B.S. that sites exist which try to glom onto rights and that other places use these as source of material, but I think it is a by-product internet and perceptions of what is "okay" has changed or is being ignored. IP reallys seems to have taken a hit. If the Times would donate some money to a charity I do think it would be great.

Ultimately the decision always comes down to weighing the pros and cons of the options. Nothing is ever 100% certain in these areas and as long as potential pitfalls are looked at, that is all that someone can do.

Of course this isn't legal advice.

Agreed, I am not trying to provide legal advice or say what someone should or should not do. Just my thoughts. Great thread on the issues I think.

...As to selling versus advertising I think you are touching also on matters similar to right of privacy/use in trade? Not quite sure what you were referring to in terms of advertising.

It's simple. Any photographs taken at a sporting event are subject to the licensing agreements on the ticket. However, a lot of what is written ISN'T always enforceable in a civil court. So long as Jeremy post those pics for fair use (not intending to sell those pics), he is quite safe.

A very fine line there to draw (and correct in as much as Jeremy has the copyright since I do not think any license to attend an event has ever tried to claim copyright) but as mentioned earlier could be more problems than it is worth.

It's all about fine lines. If anything, the Times would have to pay BOTH the NHL for publishing an unauthorized picture and using someone's image without their permission. It's usually the agency like Getty and their photogs who would go after the unofficial photographer, and it has happened before. But only because those photographers advertised their unofficial pictures for sale.

Again this is not legal advice.