I just saw one of my photos used in an online newspaper without my permission

[Leica All Day]

Wow...I am a little shocked.....I was never contacted by the paper or by my agency about this. I remember that Gamma sold this photo to Paris Match and I was notified and everything was ok. I don't think the paper went through my agency and got permission to use it, it was probably taken from Flickr....
here is the link

http://indiaspecial.net/featured/lessons-learnt-from-recent-spate-of-terrorist-attacks/

I should send an email to my editor and the paper to see what's up. To be honest, I am not so sure how I feel about it...Has this ever ever hapened to any of you guys?

cheers, michael

 

[ZeissFan]

I don't know how this specific agency works, but generally member newspapers are allowed to use photos from that agency.

For example, we subscribe to AP and Getty and are permitted to use online any AP and Getty photos without having to first contact every photographer.

The only restriction would be those photos tagged as "NOT FOR ONLINE USE," and that's the responsibility of the photo agency.

It's unreasonable to expect a newspaper to contact every agency contributor for permission to use a photo. That's the responsibility of the agency.

Do you specify that the photo was for "one time use only?"

 

[sevo]

Well, they credited you and seem to have proper attributions elsewhere as well. They may have got it from Gamma - which went wobbly in May and declared bankrupcy weeks ago, and may have gone dishonest on their photographers in the time between. If so, you are probably screwed, as the photographers are way down on their list of creditors.

I'd write a polite email to the paper - maybe they can even put your slice out of the payment to Gamma on hold and eventually pay you directly.

Sevo

 

[35mmdelux]

They gave you attribution suggesting the newspaper thought it was following protocol as we dont know the pmt situation. Congrats on getting your name out there.

 

[Greg M.]

I just saw one of my photos used in an online newspaper without my permission

Michael... my agency doesn't like to sell to Hachette-Fillipacci (Paris-Match), because their attitude is that every picture they touch, belongs to them, and if you don't like it... tough ****.

I don't know which agency you belong to... but, first, I would give them a heads-up on this, and see if THEY have any leverage w/H-F. They lost money, on this thing, as well...


Greg.

 

[kitaanat]

I agree with all above comments.

I use Flickr and was contact 2 times ask for permission to use my pictures on their article.

First, they use Flickr's API that have a mechanism to handle this kind of thing with some website. (Or someone that program using Flickr's API). I accepted this case and open an account at nowpublic.com according to their instruction.

Second, I was contacted by someone through Flickr message ask for permission to use my picture on their website. And I accepted his request by message and tell him to notify me where the picture will be used because I would like to see it too. But without any reply.

After the second case I turn off Flickr's API for third party sharing and let Flickr show only my low resolution image.

 

[Al Kaplan]

It's really impossible to police the use of your photos in digital media. Once the photo is out there on the web it's out there! A few weeks ago I posted some decades old photos of an old friend on my blog and he called within minutes, asking me to please remove one of them. It was on line for fifteen minutes at most but a google search a few days later came up with the same photo, complete with credit line, on another blog. That blogger might not have lifted it directly from my blog.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

 

[ZeissFan]

Al, I agree. Once it's on the Web, it's pretty much open season. Bloggers grab photos with impunity and rarely credit the original photographer.

Newspapers seem to be a bit more responsible in this regard, but not always.

The more lawless the country, the less likely they are to credit you. That's a generality, of course, but one that I found to be roughly true.

When I was working in Hong Kong, we found a Web site that more or less (more, really) replicated the look and feel of our news site, right down to the site' logo. There's was in Chinese, while ours was in English. But the navigation, background image and most pieces of other art were ours. And there wasn't a damn thing we could do about it. I think the company attorneys contact them, but they simply ignored the attorneys.

But yeah, you put your images on the Internet and at some point someone is going to take them.

Cough, cough -- Henry Scherer stealing the image of my Contax IIa for his Web site (OK, it was his site designer, and it's time to let it go).

 

[Al Kaplan]

I've grabbed a few photos for my blog too, but give credit and attempt to contact the photographer asking for permission and offering to remove it if requested. I also ocassionally mention that all the photos on the blog are copyright either myself or the photographer if they're by somebody else.

What concerns me is somebody using the photo in print media where they're making money through its use, and leaving off a credit line.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

 

[Pherdinand]

pretty good image! Shows the mess very well

 

[ZeissFan]

I think what hasn't been made clear are the terms of the photographer's contract with the agency. If we knew the terms of the contract, then it would be more clear if this was an unauthorized use or simply a member newspaper using a photo.

 

[mfunnell]

It's really impossible to police the use of your photos in digital media. Once the photo is out there on the web it's out there!

This is very true. That's one of the reasons that the only versions of my photos that are on the web are low resolution. If someone wants to use an 800x536px version of one of my photos, well, I guess they can.

Not that my photos are very good - and I might take a different view if I made my living from photography. But what cheeses me off on those occasions when someone has "pilfered" one of my photos is that all they had to do was ask! I've had quite a few people ask me for permission to use photos I have on-line and, so far, I've not only said "yes" but have asked if they'd like a higher-resolution version. (Sometimes they have wanted, and so I've sent a higher-res photo by e-mail.)

Now, I might take a different view if asked to provide free content for a serious "for profit" use. That smacks a little too much, to my liking, of someone bludging of someone else's goodwill, and possibly taking paid work away from a photographer who needs it. But nobody of that sort has contacted me except on the (all-too-few) occasions when I've been offered payment up-front (not much, but AFAIK at "normal" rates).

...Mike

 

[emraphoto]

Ok, what I don't understand here is where you reckon the image was "lifted" from? If it was lifted from another article on the Internet then I believe you can send a cease use email. I have gone through it a few times. If it's a legit endeavor they will usually comply.

Now Flickr is a whole other can o worms due to the whole creative commons thing. As a result I don't use the thing beyond family birthday parties.

Truth be told I only use AP, CP and AFN now as almost all other avenues I had used (bloomberg, mavrix, getty) had resulted in something like this.

Question, if they did get it legit from Gamma (rip) wouldn't "Gamma" be somewhere in the credit line?

If it was

 

[kitaanat]

This is very true. That's one of the reasons that the only versions of my photos that are on the web are low resolution. If someone wants to use an 800x536px version of one of my photos, well, I guess they can.

...Mike

800x536 is enough for good 5"x7" and 8"x10"


We are living in the "copy & paste era".
I used to list a camera accessory on ebay and someone copy all of my description "including the serial number" later other ebay member asked me a question because he found 2 listing with the same serial number.

It's very funny that my description copied even I'm not a native english speaker.

 

[35mmdelux]

I took a product shot for a brochure at the company I worked 15 yrs ago -- I was the purchasing agent but had a 4x5 and offered to help put the brochure together. They used it in the brochure and then posted it on the front page of their website. Its been on the front page of their website for the past 15 yrs. Never a dime or atta' boy. Paint me dumb.

 

[Leica All Day]

hey guys, thanks for the replies....I just got back from a weekend vacation and I have been away from a computer ever since I first posted this thread....I am going to send my editor at Gamma an email tomorrow and also the onine paper to see what's up.....thanks again.....cheers, michael

 

[mfunnell]

800x536 is enough for good 5"x7" and 8"x10"

Perhaps in newsprint. I decided on that as a maximum size, amongst other reasons, when I upres'd from 800x536 then inkjet-printed a 6x4 on photo paper. It looked pretty cod-ordinary.

If someone wants to print at 8"x10" I think I'll be glad they don't credit me as the photographer!

...Mike

 

[Roger Hicks]

800x536 is enough for good 5"x7" and 8"x10"

Not really. It's about enough for a reasonably high quality 2x3 inch or a mediocre 4x6 inch at the industry standard 300 dpi; OK at 4x6 inch/200 dpi on an ink-jet.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JohnyD]

i hope my pic could be used in a news paper , even without notice ,

 

[kitaanat]

Not really. It's about enough for a reasonably high quality 2x3 inch or a mediocre 4x6 inch at the industry standard 300 dpi; OK at 4x6 inch/200 dpi on an ink-jet.

Cheers,

R.

Perhaps in newsprint. I decided on that as a maximum size, amongst other reasons, when I upres'd from 800x536 then inkjet-printed a 6x4 on photo paper. It looked pretty cod-ordinary.

If someone wants to print at 8"x10" I think I'll be glad they don't credit me as the photographer!

...Mike

I agree with both of you and that's a fact but the result from a minilabs made me change all of my files for web to 500x300.

Anat