Lawyer - Photos Published Without Permission

[mboldt]

I don't know if anyone has had any experience with any lawyers regarding copyrights, etc. But I recently submitted 30 images to a magazine for review, I never signed, or spoke to the editor even. 11 of those images were published, its a Canada wide magazine... so I am pretty pissed and am looking to make a settlement.. I am looking to own these guys, they aren't cheap, they have advertisers like Calvin Klein and Tag Heuer...

Any info will help!

[spiffyguido]

If you own those pictures, they have no right to use them without your permission. Check to make sure you didn't skip over any fine print during the submission process.

[Afrodeziak]

I'm no lawyer but I'd say you have a case. Always send your photos as proofs though, not full size or quality, this way nothing can be used in print unless they want to make themselves look like asses.

Was it a misunderstanding that these photo's were passed along internally within their company ? or are you pretty sure they knew they were getting away with a quick one ?

[liquid1010]

Definitely review the documentation you submitted them with. If that doesn't state anything specific, speak directly with their editor.

[R-Audi]

What kind of review were you looking for??
How were the photo's used?

[Donmega]

Originally posted by liquid1010
Definitely review the documentation you submitted them with. If that doesn't state anything specific, speak directly with their editor.


exactly, there might be a slight chance of fine print that was missed :dunno:

[mboldt]

I never once spoke with an editor, went over any papers, I submitted the photos to their old photographer, he was leaving and wanted me to take his place, I uploaded the files, he sent the editor the address, he told me I missed the deadline... He told me if I was hired that this would not be a paying part of the job, however other parts would be, but he never told me that these photos were to be published or used in any manner.

I sent low resolution with the exif data stripped.. so I have all the proof I need to show that they are mine anyway... I may just have a lawyer approach them instead of talking with the editor, the old photographer already told me he had a few problems with the editor and I would rather not deal with him/her.

[mboldt]

Originally posted by R-Audi
What kind of review were you looking for??
How were the photo's used?

If they liked them, they would hire me as an on staff photographer to replace their old photographer that was moving onto hosting a TV show. The photos were sent in to see if the editor liked them and wanted me on board. The old photographer did all the talking with the editor for me, and then told me I missed my chance and I had no oppurtunity with the magazine anymore...


The photos are a full page collage basically.

[analbumcover]

Originally posted by mboldt


If they liked them, they would hire me as an on staff photographer to replace their old photographer that was moving onto hosting a TV show. The photos were sent in to see if the editor liked them and wanted me on board. The old photographer did all the talking with the editor for me, and then told me I missed my chance and I had no oppurtunity with the magazine anymore...


The photos are a full page collage basically.

post em up man, this is some wack ass shit fa sho

[mboldt]

Post what up? Haha

[Donmega]

lol i think he means ur collage.

well if that the case, then imo seek legal action.

[Maddog55]

Holy crap this sounds interesting. Keep us informed, mboldt.

When I took those hit-n-run pics, the Sun photographer said they were worth some good money. Their editor in chief offered me some money but not even close to what the photographer said they were worth. I countered....he rejected..and ended up using the ones I had posted on photobucket, without my consent. Idiot me should've taken them off of there immediately.

I really want to hear what becomes of your situation...subscribed.

[mboldt]

Okay! That's the point of this thread lol.

I'll take a photo of the page later and post it, it's just a bunch of club pictures, nothing I am proud of but I am still pissed that they did this and I would like some compensation and I believe they need to learn that they cannot do that.

[icecreamvan]

Originally posted by Maddog55
Holy crap this sounds interesting. Keep us informed, mboldt.

When I took those hit-n-run pics, the Sun photographer said they were worth some good money. Their editor in chief offered me some money but not even close to what the photographer said they were worth. I countered....he rejected..and ended up using the ones I had posted on photobucket, without my consent. Idiot me should've taken them off of there immediately.

I really want to hear what becomes of your situation...subscribed.

What're photos like that worth anyway?

[mboldt]

Other photographers I have been talking to have said to send them an invoice with a 3x charge on it because there was no contract or permission granted... I gotta figure out their demographic info of readers and stuff.

[civicluva]

lets see these pictures!

[Maddog55]

Originally posted by icecreamvan


What're photos like that worth anyway?

Dunno.....but the photographer said I could probably get myself some good photo equipment with what they were worth. I was offered $100 from the paper...which I knew was way lowballing it..and then they just grabbed them from the site. (which they probably did IMMEDIATELY when the story began..as a safety.)

And full page glossy photo's in a national magazine is worth WAY more than that!!

[sputnik]

I would get a good copyright lawyer.

For 11 images in a glossy mag you should see 5 digits in compensation minimum.

[shakalaka]

Wow I wish I could be of some help to you on this. I do have some idea about this, but I wouldn't want to cloud your mind with something that might not be true. I could have helped you better if this happened in couple of months. I don't do Intellectual Property Law until next semester. lol

[mboldt]

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b207/mboldt/umm.jpg

[mboldt]

You can go pick up the magazine at any news stand.

[icecreamvan]

Close up of the blonde in the top middle please. :love: :rofl:

[GQBalla]

lol ^^

[mboldt]

That's actually my ex girlfriend ahaha

[analbumcover]

is her name chelsea?

she looks familiar

[mboldt]

Nope! Steph

[Rat Fink]

.

[Fiasco]

Originally posted by mboldt
Nope! Steph

I'd LOVE to ride that :poosie: best of luck

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I suspect the toughest part will be finding a lawyer that will take your case. Your end of the litigation will be to cut into the magazine's profits - that is, you're saying "My images helped sell this magazine, I therefore deserve a cut of the profit." As your images were not used for, say, the cover, it will be difficult to say/prove that your images contributed significantly to the profit of the magazine. Possible? Yes. Easy? No.

Bottom line? Don't ask on a car forum that knows zilch about copyright litigation and will just say "OMG SUE!!!!." Contact a real lawyer and get real answers.

[icecreamvan]

Originally posted by mboldt
That's actually my ex girlfriend ahaha

I've taken the liberty to highlight the keyword to lessen any guilt you might have. ;)

[mboldt]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
I suspect the toughest part will be finding a lawyer that will take your case. Your end of the litigation will be to cut into the magazine's profits - that is, you're saying "My images helped sell this magazine, I therefore deserve a cut of the profit." As your images were not used for, say, the cover, it will be difficult to say/prove that your images contributed significantly to the profit of the magazine. Possible? Yes. Easy? No.

Bottom line? Don't ask on a car forum that knows zilch about copyright litigation and will just say "OMG SUE!!!!." Contact a real lawyer and get real answers.

I am going to call the editor tomorrow and try to come to a settlement, I am worried about complications because of the middleman involved though.

[JGerke]

You may be wise to simply TALK to a lawyer first. I'm not saying you should go out and start a lawsuit, it may help to know what the situation is and what you are ACTUALLY entitled to under the law before talking to the editor. Being informed is your #1 weapon.

[mboldt]

Yep exactly what I did.
I am going to try to come to a settlement tomorrow via phone with the editor after I speak to one other lawyer.

I also found 2-3 other photographers that have encountered the same problem but didn't bother going after them for it... So I want to make an impact on these guys and make sure they don't think they can fuck around like that..

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by mboldt


I am going to call the editor tomorrow and try to come to a settlement, I am worried about complications because of the middleman involved though.

I think you've made a good decision by trying to settle it yourself first - when once of my photos was printed as an advertisement w/o permission, I went directly to the source and ironed things out there, rather than potentially wasting a lot of time and money on a frivolous lawsuit.

However, if the publisher is unable or unwilling to reach an agreement, legal means may be your only recourse.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by mboldt
Yep exactly what I did.
I am going to try to come to a settlement tomorrow via phone with the editor after I speak to one other lawyer.

I also found 2-3 other photographers that have encountered the same problem but didn't bother going after them for it... So I want to make an impact on these guys and make sure they don't think they can fuck around like that..


Man...


you wanted a job with the magazine. Looks like they obviously liked your stuff.


Why don't you just ask them for a job instead of suing them. I doubt anyone is going to want to hire you if you approach them with a lawsuit.

Just my .02

[ZorroAMG]

Why would he WANT to work with a POS shady editor? So this can potentially happen with every pic he takes?

No thanks!

UMM is a big rag here....those pics aren't anything that will generate the mag revenue though...they are the clubzone kinda pics that everone shoots at clubs....hardly 5 digits worth...

Settle out, don't waste your time with a lawsuit.

[analbumcover]

update - did you talk to the editor?.. what did a lawyer suggest?

[mboldt]

Editor won't discuss it with me right now, asked me to call back Monday... I am thinking they're going to their lawyer right about now...

Lawyer said that I would be able to file a suit in civil court, however there maybe complications due to the middle man... I think if I went after them for a settlement and they possibly pay out, they'll go after the middle man for being a dumb ass, I don't know for 100% that he was making sure the magazine knew to not publish the shots... So they might try to say that, or they might just go after him.

[It's all I got]

Originally posted by sputnik
I would get a good copyright lawyer.

For 11 images in a glossy mag you should see 5 digits in compensation minimum.

where did you get these numbers?

[JGerke]

I dunno guy...this sounds like it will get messy for you and just waste a lot of your time...netting you just about nothing after lawyer fees. What kind of attitude did you have when you talked to the guy? Getting a job through them is likely to net you more than suing...maybe let them know that since they liked your pictures enough to publish them without your permission they might as well offer you a contract?

[mboldt]

Originally posted by JGerke
I dunno guy...this sounds like it will get messy for you and just waste a lot of your time...netting you just about nothing after lawyer fees. What kind of attitude did you have when you talked to the guy? Getting a job through them is likely to net you more than suing...maybe let them know that since they liked your pictures enough to publish them without your permission they might as well offer you a contract?

My friend went through that process, shot his first big model shoot, they were supposed to pay out $2k, never paid him...

[mboldt]

Originally posted by It's all I got


where did you get these numbers?

For a lawsuit maybe that much, but I am invoicing them $1k per photo and $100/hour for the time I was shooting and tripling it, then I'll settle for regular rate and explain that's the industry standard if photos are published without permission.

[Deville]

Originally posted by mboldt


For a lawsuit maybe that much, but I am invoicing them $1k per photo and $100/hour for the time I was shooting and tripling it, then I'll settle for regular rate and explain that's the industry standard if photos are published without permission.

So your going to invoice them for about 30k - 35k? :D

[sputnik]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
I suspect the toughest part will be finding a lawyer that will take your case. Your end of the litigation will be to cut into the magazine's profits - that is, you're saying "My images helped sell this magazine, I therefore deserve a cut of the profit." As your images were not used for, say, the cover, it will be difficult to say/prove that your images contributed significantly to the profit of the magazine. Possible? Yes. Easy? No.

Bottom line? Don't ask on a car forum that knows zilch about copyright litigation and will just say "OMG SUE!!!!." Contact a real lawyer and get real answers.

Actually its not based on the magazine profit.

It would be based on market licensing fees from other stock agencies. Most magazines pay $400 and up per images from companies like Veer, Getty and Corbis.

It will actually be a pretty easy battle. I would personally avoid the lawyer thing and talk to the magazine directly and just threaten legal action. Chances are they will pay as they know what stock images cost.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by mboldt


For a lawsuit maybe that much, but I am invoicing them $1k per photo and $100/hour for the time I was shooting and tripling it, then I'll settle for regular rate and explain that's the industry standard if photos are published without permission.

They will probably balk at that figure and tell you to call your lawyer. Most photographers dont get paid per image AND per hour. Its on or the other.

Ask for $1000/image and you will probably come to a decent agreement (somewhere in the $500-700/image range) especially since your photographs aren't anything special and more "snapshot" grade stuff that most people take at the bar on any given weekend.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by sputnik


Actually its not based on the magazine profit.

It would be based on market licensing fees from other stock agencies. Most magazines pay $400 and up per images from companies like Veer, Getty and Corbis.

It will actually be a pretty easy battle. I would personally avoid the lawyer thing and talk to the magazine directly and just threaten legal action. Chances are they will pay as they know what stock images cost.

You are confusing advertising use with editorial use. Stock photography is used for advertising and commercial purposes, the more journalistic "club" photos that mboldt provided are not considered stock photography as they were never intended or used as such.

When was the last time you saw someone use a Getty stock image for a local events section?

[sputnik]

Originally posted by mboldt
Editor won't discuss it with me right now, asked me to call back Monday... I am thinking they're going to their lawyer right about now...

Lawyer said that I would be able to file a suit in civil court, however there maybe complications due to the middle man... I think if I went after them for a settlement and they possibly pay out, they'll go after the middle man for being a dumb ass, I don't know for 100% that he was making sure the magazine knew to not publish the shots... So they might try to say that, or they might just go after him.

They will need an agreement in writing.

As a photographer your images are always your property. You simply give the publication a license to use them.

Either way there is a contract involved and it needs to be signed by both parties.

They don't have a legal leg to stand on even if it was a verbal understanding.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


You are confusing advertising use with editorial use. Stock photography is used for advertising and commercial purposes, the more journalistic "club" photos that mboldt provided are not considered stock photography as they were never intended or used as such.

When was the last time you saw someone use a Getty stock image for a local events section?

It doesn't matter. Regardless as to whether images are used for editorials or for advertising you CANNOT print ANYTHING that you did not shoot yourself or have permission to print.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by sputnik


It doesn't matter. Regardless as to whether images are used for editorials or for advertising you CANNOT print ANYTHING that you did not shoot yourself or have permission to print.

No kidding, I don't believe that was ever in question, nor do I believe I stated otherwise.

The point is HOW the photos were used will determine how damages would be collected during litigation. The methods differ for an image used for advertising as opposed to an image used for editorial use.

Might I ask what you base your assertions on? I wasn't aware you were a photographer.

[UndrgroundRider]

Looks like it will be messy. I'm not a lawyer but in my opinion if you can't work out a deal with the publisher, despite threatening legal action, I would drop it. Take it as a lesson learned, and watermark all of your proofs! It's common practice in the industry for exactly this reason.

The photos look like they were taken in some sort of club/bar. Do you have signed releases from each person in the photos? If you don't, you don't have the rights to sell them.

Certain laws allow people to be photographed, and those photographs published, but only if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, and if the main subject of the photograph was not the person/people in them. Your photos don't seem to qualify.

Assuming you did setup a photo shoot, and hired these models you're looking at a reasonable market value of 11 * $600 = $6600. That's a lot of money, but not really worth the time and effort in court. Especially since the potential legal fees for losing the case will be well in excess of your claim amount.

It sounds like you're not a career photographer, which they will use against you in court. Most amateur photographers submit their photos to publications looking for exposure, not compensation.

Properly weighing the cost/risk of the case is something your lawyer can help you with.

As a sole-proprietor consultant I have had to write off jobs where a client refuses to pay, sometimes on invoices as high as $10,000. When up against corporations with virtually unlimited $$$, it's impossible to win. They will bankrupt you with legal fees long before you see any closure on the case.

[mboldt]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider
Looks like it will be messy. I'm not a lawyer but in my opinion if you can't work out a deal with the publisher, despite threatening legal action, I would drop it. Take it as a lesson learned, and watermark all of your proofs! It's common practice in the industry for exactly this reason.

The photos look like they were taken in some sort of club/bar. Do you have signed releases from each person in the photos? If you don't, you don't have the rights to sell them.

Certain laws allow people to be photographed, and those photographs published, but only if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, and if the main subject of the photograph was not the person/people in them. Your photos don't seem to qualify.

Assuming you did setup a photo shoot, and hired these models you're looking at a reasonable market value of 11 * $600 = $6600. That's a lot of money, but not really worth the time and effort in court. Especially since the potential legal fees for losing the case will be well in excess of your claim amount.

It sounds like you're not a career photographer, which they will use against you in court. Most amateur photographers submit their photos to publications looking for exposure, not compensation.

Properly weighing the cost/risk of the case is something your lawyer can help you with.

As a sole-proprietor consultant I have had to write off jobs where a client refuses to pay, sometimes on invoices as high as $10,000. When up against corporations with virtually unlimited $$$, it's impossible to win. They will bankrupt you with legal fees long before you see any closure on the case.

They have no right to publish those photos and make money off the issues without release forms, which is another problem they may come across... I personally know a few people in these images that could go after them for publishing them, however that could come back at me in the end, so I will leave that... I wouldn't be in shit for publishing them, as I gave 0 permission for these to be published.

I have been only doing photo / design work for a living for the past . So I could say that I need this money to make a living, I have invoices for thousands of dollars to back that up.

The reasoning behind the invoice in the first place is, they have no right to publish a series of photos with absolutely no permission from me, no signed contract, no confirmation, no communication.

I don't plan on taking this to court, but I am sending an invoice over to the editor tomorrow morning for triple the current industry rate (photobiz ftw) because they used them without permission and breached copyright laws and I will settle for the standard rate or even a little less.

Sure these aren't some high class fashion shots, but I know another photographer that shot a set for them, was supposed to be paid $2000.00 for that and another job, he never received payment and did not have time to go after them (he's a big big photog.) These guys think they can do whatever the hell they want with photos. I know they have no model releases for any shoots, unless the photographer covered all that without being asked.