Sam R
Established
The AP tag IS a little agressive......
Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner
- Thread starter Joe Mondello
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 128
- Views 6K
pizzahut88
Well-known
There is such a thing as a settlement offer, and if they fail to settle for the reasonable sum which you were willingly to sell the photo for, at the end of day, the court will award damages in your favour, no the least together with costs for the action itself.
Mind you, the court will look favourably upon you as the layman.
You own the rights to your photo.
Write a letter, label it on top with "Without prejudice"
address to the news, press whoever has done,
forget about calling.
Last but no least, demand a reply within 7 working days.
Mind you, the court will look favourably upon you as the layman.
You own the rights to your photo.
Write a letter, label it on top with "Without prejudice"
address to the news, press whoever has done,
forget about calling.
Last but no least, demand a reply within 7 working days.
Last edited:
newsgrunt
Well-known
I realize this is a rough period but you should get the copyright to the photograph/s registered. I'm not definite and others may have more knowledge on this, but any other infringement after you have registered the photo will be easier to fight in court. Not suggesting this is the course you should follow but a heads up to others.
George S.
How many is enough?
pizzahut88 said:
Very good advice. Don't think this is the end of it either. There'll be competency hearings for the accused as well as a possible trial, motions, hearings, sentencing, etc. All future opportunities for the papers to run the photo again and again.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Joe, I'm sorry about Kathy. I agree with George S. Even though this is an uncomfortable time for you, I wish an attorney among us would create heck. I'm not a Pro but I still feel we need to make a stand. Or stealing images off Flickr will soon be the standard for the community, and then will be indefensible in court.
bob cole
Well-known
Unauthorized Picture Use by NY Times, NBC, Time Warner
Joe, as a retired reporter for The New York Times, I feel sure that if you have approached The Times with your request for credit, The Times will first check to determine that you actually took the photograph and will then give you credit, probably in its corrections box... These things do happen, even to The Times's own photographers...I can't speak for the other organizations, but it seems logical to me that they, too, will review your request in the same way and, maybe, you will get their attention, too... [Litigation won't get you anywhere].
Joe, as a retired reporter for The New York Times, I feel sure that if you have approached The Times with your request for credit, The Times will first check to determine that you actually took the photograph and will then give you credit, probably in its corrections box... These things do happen, even to The Times's own photographers...I can't speak for the other organizations, but it seems logical to me that they, too, will review your request in the same way and, maybe, you will get their attention, too... [Litigation won't get you anywhere].
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Oh, my.
My condolences, as well.
Not a nice situation, from any angle.
My condolences, as well.
Not a nice situation, from any angle.
anselwannab
Well-known
Kind of kick while you are down, but at least the first picture for most, and the last picture for everyone, of this woman will be a nice portrait. No DMV shot, no New Years Eve half in the bag leaning into the frame, no arm drapped around her as they crop out the person next to her.
If that helps to add more of the human element and gets people engaged in her story, that is a pretty good payment.
After my Dad died of a sudden heart attack, we were amazed at the number of pictures we had of him in a ball cap, sunglasses and a face in shadows. We had to really search for good pic of him.
If that helps to add more of the human element and gets people engaged in her story, that is a pretty good payment.
After my Dad died of a sudden heart attack, we were amazed at the number of pictures we had of him in a ball cap, sunglasses and a face in shadows. We had to really search for good pic of him.
charjohncarter
Veteran
bob cole, it seems to me that NY Times should of checked to see who took the photo BEFORE they used it. And litigation is not going to do anything is right, but having them formally admit their stealing will protect photographers from infringement of intellectual property creep.
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
RdEoSg said:
Well THAT'S interesting!
BTW, so far as I am able to tell, the photo was posted in this thread at the Martin Guitar Forum and my friend Roger (who posted the link) believes that's where the news media found it. I've never printed the picture, BTW. It only existed on my Flickr site and on my computer up to last week.
http://p072.ezboard.com/ftheunofficialmartinguitarforumfrm4.showMessage?topicID=42631.topic
scroll down a few posts to see the uncropped snapshot.
I don't want to sue anybody. I am trying to cope with this devastating news and I think my brain just wants to focus on this triviality instead of focusing on what actually happened.
Thanks for all the kind condolences and all the thoughtful advice.
Last edited:
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I'd guess that you'd have a hard time proving financial damage. They may or may not have paid anything to use the photo. Much of that would have been determined by their access to other photos. I assume you aren't the only person who has ever produced images of this unfortunate woman.
They might have offered a couple hundred dollars - or they might have just used something else.
But this is most definitely not a commercial use of the photo. Courts have ruled in the past that using images for news is distinctly different than using them for advertising. I should be able to cite the landmark Supreme Court case, but I'm too far removed from school. There is a much greater degree of freedom when it comes to newsgathering. (I'm not, however, saying this was the correct thing for them to do in this instance.)
But I would bet a very large amount of money that they did not take that photo off Flickr. Newspapers take issues like this very seriously. Somebody gave it to them.
They assumed it was ok to use. I would imagine the Times would have a very strong argument that they were acting in good faith under deadline pressure. Even now, they have no reason to believe they've done anything wrong - unless you have informed them. If your photo credit was not on the photo, how would they ever know who to contact?
Copyright law is hardly an exact science. I was working on a story last week (I write about technology for a daily newspaper) that dealt with the sharing of songs and videos online. Outright piracy aside, it's sort of amazing how much of the stuff that's on YouTube and other sites would have a strong fair-use argument.
They might have offered a couple hundred dollars - or they might have just used something else.
But this is most definitely not a commercial use of the photo. Courts have ruled in the past that using images for news is distinctly different than using them for advertising. I should be able to cite the landmark Supreme Court case, but I'm too far removed from school. There is a much greater degree of freedom when it comes to newsgathering. (I'm not, however, saying this was the correct thing for them to do in this instance.)
But I would bet a very large amount of money that they did not take that photo off Flickr. Newspapers take issues like this very seriously. Somebody gave it to them.
They assumed it was ok to use. I would imagine the Times would have a very strong argument that they were acting in good faith under deadline pressure. Even now, they have no reason to believe they've done anything wrong - unless you have informed them. If your photo credit was not on the photo, how would they ever know who to contact?
Copyright law is hardly an exact science. I was working on a story last week (I write about technology for a daily newspaper) that dealt with the sharing of songs and videos online. Outright piracy aside, it's sort of amazing how much of the stuff that's on YouTube and other sites would have a strong fair-use argument.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
The cross section of people that participate on this forum is interesting...
Take the emotional content and circumstances away from this and look at it for what it is.
Several Multi Million dollar corporations took your intellectual property (a picture of a mountain, or a flower or a person or whatever), republished it without your permission and are using it, arguably, to fuel sales of their own product without securing a license from you.
Its possible they didnt know who took the picture. But its not like they dont have a budget for these things, and by that I dont mean a budget to pay photographers, but a budget to settle lawsuits.
I can understand under the circumstances not wanting to pursue it, but a huge corporation is stealing your property. The end. Its a shame to let it go just based upon the precedent alone. At the very least contact the editors and call them out.
Take the emotional content and circumstances away from this and look at it for what it is.
Several Multi Million dollar corporations took your intellectual property (a picture of a mountain, or a flower or a person or whatever), republished it without your permission and are using it, arguably, to fuel sales of their own product without securing a license from you.
Its possible they didnt know who took the picture. But its not like they dont have a budget for these things, and by that I dont mean a budget to pay photographers, but a budget to settle lawsuits.
I can understand under the circumstances not wanting to pursue it, but a huge corporation is stealing your property. The end. Its a shame to let it go just based upon the precedent alone. At the very least contact the editors and call them out.
Take it from someone who has sued in federal court over copyright infringement.
1. If the image isn't already copyrighted (i.e., officially with the copyright office) then you can't collect statutory damages.
2. What are the actual damages? Seems like this would be difficult to prove.
Unless you have more money than you know what to do with, this is a difficult thing to pursue legally.
Take a look at this page, looks like someone went so far as to alter the original image: http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=58564
1. If the image isn't already copyrighted (i.e., officially with the copyright office) then you can't collect statutory damages.
2. What are the actual damages? Seems like this would be difficult to prove.
Unless you have more money than you know what to do with, this is a difficult thing to pursue legally.
Take a look at this page, looks like someone went so far as to alter the original image: http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=58564
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I know we are all getting wrapped up in this debate.
But Joe, I wonder something.
If the NYTimes called and said: "Hey, Can we use this image?"
What would you have said? I'm going to assume you would have agreed - it's such a nice image and a nice way for her to be remembered.
If she was your friend, it is hard for me to imagine that you would have demanded payment for this.
If the credit is the issue, just call them up and let them know that you were the photographer and would like credit. I can't believe they would say no.
But Joe, I wonder something.
If the NYTimes called and said: "Hey, Can we use this image?"
What would you have said? I'm going to assume you would have agreed - it's such a nice image and a nice way for her to be remembered.
If she was your friend, it is hard for me to imagine that you would have demanded payment for this.
If the credit is the issue, just call them up and let them know that you were the photographer and would like credit. I can't believe they would say no.
photo4ls
Well-known
Unauthorized use of photo
Unauthorized use of photo
Joe, you have my condolences and sorry about your friend. I think we should all
try to understand that this is not all about financial gain for Joe. Rather than all of
the confusing advice maybe just a kind word would help and he can decide what
his next step will be later.
Unauthorized use of photo
Joe, you have my condolences and sorry about your friend. I think we should all
try to understand that this is not all about financial gain for Joe. Rather than all of
the confusing advice maybe just a kind word would help and he can decide what
his next step will be later.
There you go.
tbarker13 said:
ERV
Well-known
Joe,
I'm on the the Upper Westside and have followed this story as well as seen your photograph. Its a very tragic event that I'm sure is even more difficult for you because she was a friend of yours.
Nevertheless, I think the Times owes you an explanation, and I suggest contacting the photo and section editors and discuss where they got the photo, and so on.
At the very least they should identify you as the photographer in their 'Corrections" column (They call it something else, but you know what I mean) that appears on page 2 of the first section as well as any future use.
My name was mispelled in an article about apt. prices and I sent an email and they printed a correction. Given the situation, your connection and photograph are much more significant than my issue was, and require an explanation and acknowledgement.
Eugene
I'm on the the Upper Westside and have followed this story as well as seen your photograph. Its a very tragic event that I'm sure is even more difficult for you because she was a friend of yours.
Nevertheless, I think the Times owes you an explanation, and I suggest contacting the photo and section editors and discuss where they got the photo, and so on.
At the very least they should identify you as the photographer in their 'Corrections" column (They call it something else, but you know what I mean) that appears on page 2 of the first section as well as any future use.
My name was mispelled in an article about apt. prices and I sent an email and they printed a correction. Given the situation, your connection and photograph are much more significant than my issue was, and require an explanation and acknowledgement.
Eugene
George S.
How many is enough?
They're not off the hook by merely giving a credit to Joe. They can't steal the image and say "this was taken by Joe". There has to be some "used by permission" figured in.
That said, some are getting borderline hysterical here. If Joe merely wants a credit, he should contact the papers/agencies and demand one now and for the future. They also have budgets for paying for use, and I'd guess that it would be in the neighborhood of a couple hundred dollars per agency/newspaper. That is probably what they'd pay if they had asked permission, and Joe would probably have said "OK". So maybe he could contact them and ask for payment and find a way to donate that money somewhere in her honor.
That said, some are getting borderline hysterical here. If Joe merely wants a credit, he should contact the papers/agencies and demand one now and for the future. They also have budgets for paying for use, and I'd guess that it would be in the neighborhood of a couple hundred dollars per agency/newspaper. That is probably what they'd pay if they had asked permission, and Joe would probably have said "OK". So maybe he could contact them and ask for payment and find a way to donate that money somewhere in her honor.
Jonnyfez
Established
Forget a lawsuit. Find out who used the photo and send them an invoice for a reproduction fee. Believe it or not this sometimes works. If you get anything out them give the money to your friend's family or their favorite charity.
Jon
Jon
dpetrzelka
Well-known
Joe-
Ask them for photo credit and appropriate payment for your approval to use the photo - and DONATE THE MONEY to some cause she would have supported, or a community improvement gourp. Somehing to honor Kathryn Faughey in an appropriate way.
We here know that this is not about the money, its about the terrible thing that happened to your friend. Its also about setting appropriate precedents for photo use.
Ask them for photo credit and appropriate payment for your approval to use the photo - and DONATE THE MONEY to some cause she would have supported, or a community improvement gourp. Somehing to honor Kathryn Faughey in an appropriate way.
We here know that this is not about the money, its about the terrible thing that happened to your friend. Its also about setting appropriate precedents for photo use.
Last edited: