What are copyright rules ?

If at the time of the contract you agreed that the images would be used for the sort of advertising he's gone on to use them for it's hard to see how he's breached your copyright. Rather, your remedy would be payment of the fee (always assuming it was also agreed you would be paid).

His reason for not paying--that the images are "not good enough"--is however plainly bunkum given he's used them for the purpose comtemplated at the time of the contract.

So if you can't negotiate a compromise (which is excellent advice, the due process of law being slow and hardly ever certain) the best way forward is to threaten proceedings for non-payment of the agreed fee, not for breach of copyright.

Regards,
D.
 
This sounds to me more like theft of services than copyright infringement. Criminal rather than civil proceedings might be more appropriate--or the threat of arrest as a way to secure payment?
Rob
 
rbiemer said:
This sounds to me more like theft of services than copyright infringement. Criminal rather than civil proceedings might be more appropriate--or the threat of arrest as a way to secure payment?
Rob
Click to expand...
Aren't most cases of shooting for a client really works for hire? Why would a photographer retain copyright on images shot specifically for a client? What benefit do you have in retaining the copyrights for images you will most likely never use again?

Steve
 
If the little Mom & Pop ice cream store that hired you to begin with got a break on the price because that's all they could afford at the time, and now they're a national chain and the supermarkets all carry the brand also? Your photos might have been part of the reason!

As for other kinds of photographs, you never know when there might be a need for photos of a particular place, event, or person. You want to retain clear copyright, and just license certain, clearly defined, useage rights.
 
sjw617 said:
Aren't most cases of shooting for a client really works for hire? Why would a photographer retain copyright on images shot specifically for a client? What benefit do you have in retaining the copyrights for images you will most likely never use again?

Steve
Click to expand...

No. The benefit is that the photo is yours to re-use. Copyright does reside with the creator, as sugested earlier, unless you've both agreed otherwise. As a rule, only if you're a salaried employee does your employer automatically retain copyright.

Many companies are in the process of attempting rights grabs, including 'right -on' publications like The Guardian, for instance by sending terms of business after work has been delivered, before they will pay. These provisions are generally not enforceable.

Overall, though, as suggested the OP should sue for non-payment rather than breach of copyright - and the small claims court is the best way to go about it. If you do so, make sure you don't emphasise the copyright aspect - there have been cases where they've declared they're not competent to judge on this matter. Non-payment, for work supplied and used, is a different matter.

Good luck.

And that's an interesting question that Bill has raised (although not immediately relevant), there are big companies, including Murdoch, attempting to influence copyright legislation, primarily for pircay of music and video, although in Murdoch's case he wants help to achieve his plan of erecting a Pay Wall around his news sites, and prevent news aggregators, or Google, from featuring his stories.

It's possible he has already agreed a deal with the UK Conservatives (a rough equivalent to your Republicans), who are likely to win the next election and help him get his way, in return for the backing of his newspapers.
 
Paul T. said:
No. The benefit is that the photo is yours to re-use. Copyright does reside with the creator, as sugested earlier, unless you've both agreed otherwise. As a rule, only if you're a salaried employee does your employer automatically retain copyright.

Many companies are in the process of attempting rights grabs, including 'right -on' publications like The Guardian, for instance by sending terms of business after work has been delivered, before they will pay. These provisions are generally not enforceable.

Overall, though, as suggested the OP should sue for non-payment rather than breach of copyright - and the small claims court is the best way to go about it. If you do so, make sure you don't emphasise the copyright aspect - there have been cases where they've declared they're not competent to judge on this matter. Non-payment, for work supplied and used, is a different matter.

Good luck.

And that's an interesting question that Bill has raised (although not immediately relevant), there are big companies, including Murdoch, attempting to influence copyright legislation, primarily for pircay of music and video, although in Murdoch's case he wants help to achieve his plan of erecting a Pay Wall around his news sites, and prevent news aggregators, or Google, from featuring his stories.

It's possible he has already agreed a deal with the UK Conservatives (a rough equivalent to your Republicans), who are likely to win the next election and help him get his way, in return for the backing of his newspapers.
Click to expand...
Dear Paul,

But (for the most part, except perhaps my father) much further left. Actually, even he is slightly to the left of most Republicans. For example, he believes that trade union leaders should not be taken out and shot. At least, not all of them.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I think it is good advice to not go down the copyright route, much simpler to get them on non payment for goods received ( and used). I can't see that the restaurant has a leg to stand on, if they were not pleased with your work they should have handed the images back to you, asked you to do it again to their satisfaction or got another photographer to do the job, but as they have used your images then they are obviously "fit for purpose". If you ordered a meal in this restaurant and you didn't like the look of the food, you would send it back to the chef or find another restuarant, you wouldn't refuse to pay for it and then proceed to eat it from soup to nuts. Please keep us posted as I'm sure a lot of RFF members would be intersted to see how thing work out.
 
blindlemon said:
I think it is good advice to not go down the copyright route, much simpler to get them on non payment for goods received ( and used). I can't see that the restaurant has a leg to stand on, if they were not pleased with your work they should have handed the images back to you, asked you to do it again to their satisfaction or got another photographer to do the job, but as they have used your images then they are obviously "fit for purpose". If you ordered a meal in this restaurant and you didn't like the look of the food, you would send it back to the chef or find another restuarant, you wouldn't refuse to pay for it and then proceed to eat it from soup to nuts. Please keep us posted as I'm sure a lot of RFF members would be intersted to see how thing work out.
Click to expand...

Seconded.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Paul,

But (for the most part, except perhaps my father) much further left. Actually, even he is slightly to the left of most Republicans. For example, he believes that trade union leaders should not be taken out and shot. At least, not all of them.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Yes indeed. TO be further right would be hard.

I heard on the radio last night about Ann Coulter's new book: her leftie, liberal enemy responsible for many of the world's ills: Charles Darwin.
 
D.O'K. said:
No, under English law that analysis wouldn't be possible.

Regards,
D.
Click to expand...
OK. But, what happens if some one goes into a restaurant, orders, eats, and then doesn't pay? Or when some one gets out of a taxi and doesn't pay the fare? Here in the US the police are likely to get involved.

Rob
 
"OK. But, what happens if some one goes into a restaurant, orders, eats, and then doesn't pay? Or when some one gets out of a taxi and doesn't pay the fare? Here in the US the police are likely to get involved".

Indeed they might in the UK too, but only if the requirements of s.3 of the Theft Act 1978(as amended) were satisfied, viz:

"3.
Making off without payment.— (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence...".

Note it is essential to "make off" for the offence to be commited. The OP couldn't reasonably claim that against the user of his images.

But this legal angle is boring--sorry for the pedantry! I too second Journeyman's suggestion...

Regards,
D.
 
Last edited:
Yes it is true and no it is not true. It depends on several factors.
Copyright law allows for use of copyrighted material without permission, if it is considered "Fair Use" Unfortunately, fair use is not a black and white measurement, and is ultimately up to courts to decide.

The factors that courts examine to determine if it is fair use are:
 
Commissioning it for advertising, with the promise of payment, then using it for advertising, without payment, is never going to qualify as 'fair use'.

Cheers,

R.
 
Any progress with this? Hope you will keep them accountable in some way or other. Just imagine what methods they just might use if you ate there and refused to pay...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom