I few years back I supplied some photos to a magazine to accompany an article written by a friend of mine. The magazone is the sort of newsletter/mag for this sports national governing body.
I was chuffed to see my photos in the mag, and got credited for them in the article.
However, since then, the organisation has used one of my photos every issue, to advertise itself to subscribers…I'm not that bothered and I'm not expecting paying or anything, but I'm not credited and they never asked my permission.

Just as a matter of interest, should they have asked my permission, or by sending them photos did I give them rights to my pics for use at other times?

IIRC, you have copyright, and the magazine has a requirement to credit any photo used, regardless of whether the pic was paid for or not. I'm pretty sure you are within your rights to contact them and ask them to credit you and your copyright, or else cease using the photo.

As above, you maintain copyright for life +75 years or something. The magazine should credit you and you can charge them for the unauthorised usage and ask them to stop using it. Copyright protects the photographer even without copyright being referred to, and the magazine knows it!!
Unless you signed away the copyright or gave full permission for them to use it how they want…

[hijack] Any copyright lawyers in da house, oranyone know a copyright lawyer?[/hijack]

Only if you copyrighted them with the article, signed an agreement/contract or put copyright metadata on them. Otherwise, how will you prove they are yours?

Otherwise you are just another 'free' photographer giving stuff away for free.

Hmm, sort of thought that might be the case, as I said, not that bothered really, just thought it might be abit naughty of them…

Having said that, what sort of money does 1 picture, printed on a full page, generate for a professional snapper? After all there is a shortage of funds in my bike account…;-)

Sixty-five thousand pounds

No, the copyright is automatic. Read here. 😀

then someone comes along with a different view as I type…so which is it then? 🙂
I admit I gave the pic for free, but only assumed it was for the article, not to illustrate an unrelated ad in the mag…

£65k eh? Not bad, was hoping for more though, TalkEmeda, if you act as my rep and get me that much from the publishers I'll gove you 25% 🙂

I'll look into it after the footy. Second half about to kick off.

Hang on Extra Time and possible penalties.

If you gave it to them without specifying restrictions (and it sounds like you didn't do that) I don't see how you could retrospectively demand anything.

If you gave it to them without specifying restrictions (and it sounds like you didn't do that) I don't see how you could retrospectively demand anything.

The copyright protection IS automatic, you do not need to specify anything!!
If the photo is taken from your Flickr account and used by another on Faceburke, you have the right to control the usage of the photo, but as the photo isn't being used commercially you'll not receive (much/any) money.
If the photo IS being used commercially, then you can sue for what is in effect a commission.

Proving what has happened, on the other hand, may be a bit more difficult. Nothing written?

If it's a hard copy of a magazine, get all the copies. If it's on the internet, get someone who is reliable and independant to act as a witness. Then speak to a real copyright lawyer if you want to sue. If not just write to the magazine expressing your desire and send by recorded delivery.

It is your photo, no-one can use it without your permission. What if it wasn't a sports publication but a BNP advert. Your photo, your name even and a supporter of the BNP? I think te majority of people would soon understand a bit more about copyright law.

Saludos.

But he gave it to them…

It's your copyright unless you explicitly handed it over.

If your friend gave them the pics to use with a specific article and they used it for something else they were a bit naughty. But I have to say this sort of behaviour is rather common.

If I were you I would write to them and point out that they are using the pic for a commercial purpose never intended when it was supplied and ask them if they would like to offer you some money for continued use of it.

If it is in some promotional literature they are unlikely to want to put your credit on the pic, but they may well be prepared to bung you a few quid, though probably tens of £ rather than thousands of £

Or they might just drop your pic and use someone else's and your claim to fame will be gone.

It's probably not worth suing them.

NUJ rates are £60 per picture per use I think so you could count how many times they've used the picture and then just send them an invoice for that amount.

There was a guy on twitter this week who did that with the bbc and got £600 out of them. Been looking but can't find the details.

Talkemada – Member
Hang on Extra Time and possible penalties.

What happened to Talkemada? He's seems to have gone suddenly quiet?

😆

But he gave it to them…

He gave them a photo to use once for a specific purpose, not to use for their commercial advantage. They have breached copyright, no argument. It's the ignorance of the copyright laws which creates this problem. I have to suffer the agrgument of "if it's on the internet, it's free" type of crap, which apparently the Spanish judges agree with. Intellectual property is a difficult concept to understand and explain. Your holiday snaps are protected, your commercial work is protected.For this reason I don't agree with companies asking clients to send photos for use in their catalogues. The company gets a cheap/free source of advertising and the photographer gets nothing. You're working for free and they are receiving the profits. I guess it's ok for the hobbyist but devalues the work of professionals and allows people to misinterperet the law. My two penneth

rightplacerighttime – Member

It's your copyright unless you explicitly handed it over.

If your friend gave them the pics to use with a specific article and they used it for something else they were a bit naughty. But I have to say this sort of behaviour is rather common.

If I were you I would write to them and point out that they are using the pic for a commercial purpose never intended when it was supplied and ask them if they would like to offer you some money for continued use of it.

If it is in some promotional literature they are unlikely to want to put your credit on the pic, but they may well be prepared to bung you a few quid, though probably tens of £ rather than thousands of £

Or they might just drop your pic and use someone else's and your claim to fame will be gone.

It's probably not worth suing them.

Exactly… Whether you are a commercial photographer or not, at the lower price ranges, shouldn't affect your compensation. The fact that they are posiibly earningmoney will. Talk to them.

And breathe!

"if it's on the internet, it's free" type of crap, which apparently the Spanish judges agree with

That's only for non-commercial use, if you make money out of it it's different.

you don't have a right to a credit.
you have intellectual and moral rights in the work.

but because you didn't issue any terms and conditions or a licence to use you don't have such a strong position to gain recompense as effectively there is no breach of contract as a contract never existed.

forget about getting a "real copyright lawyer" and taking them to court, the lawyers first half hour of consultation will be more than any retrospective usage fee reclaimed.

a copy of beyond the lens from the AOP would be of more use.

Forgot all about this! I was watching Julia Bradbury in South Africa.

Don Simon has it about right. You might have given them verbal permission to use it one time, but not for any others. They've taken the piss, quite frankly. Lots of magazines etc do, because they assume people don't know about Copyright law. Everyone wants owt for nowt.

If they're making money,then so should you. I'd 'have a word'. Work out how many times they're used your image, then sort something out. I'd say £60 a pop is reasonable. Cheeky bastards.

If they dig their heels in, send me round to them…

you don't have a right to a credit.

He does if he specified that as part of the Ts and Cs of them using the pic.

I should know, putting credits on photos for contractual reasons is one of the banes of my life.

OP – If you are happy for them to continue using the pic just tell them to credit you. If not tell them to stop immediately.

If they get funny, tell them you want £25 per unauthorised use. And tell them that's cheap.

A few years ago, I gave the manager of a band some pics I'd taken at a gig, to use for promotional purposes. One turned up in a magazine. Took a bit of arguing with the picture editor to get something for it, plus the threat of legal action for Breach of Copyright.

In the end, I got £50. Don't expect a fortune. And don't take the piss, and you should be ok.

A few years ago, I gave the manager of a band some pics I'd taken at a gig, to use for promotional purposes. One turned up in a magazine

Wasn't that the whole point?

No; the pics were for the band to use in their own promotional material, not for a 3rd party commercial outfit to illustrate their shitty magazine with. The manager had sent the magazine some promo info with pics, in an email, and the used one of the pics. They didn't obtain copyright from me, the author of the work, I never gave anyone permission to publish it further to the initial agreement, so they were in breach. The band manager had no idea that the magazine would use the pic. The magazine's argument was that as they had been supplied the pics by the manager, then they assumed he had copyright. Never assume anything..

He gave them a photo to use once for a specific purpose,

He gave them a picture. I am not sure where the implicit instruction that it was for a specific purpose came from. Without T&Cs surely they could equally argue that he gave the image to them.

I am not saying I am right (I may well be wrong). It just seems odd that there can be a claim to copyright after the image has been handed over. I would agree that they had breached copyright if they just downloaded it off his Flikr page or something, but they didn't, they were given the image by him. Surely (in the absence of T&Cs or any kind of contract) they could equally argue they were given the image and had assumed ownership.

Without T&Cs surely they could equally argue that he gave the image to them.

Quite the reverse I would have thought. In the absence of a contract then the copyright would be presumed to be his.

If someone was driving a car and couldn't produce the Registration Certificate, you wouldn't assume that they must have been given it would you?

Photographers very rarely reassign their copyright. Generally they sell a license to use the image in certain ways. Very much like software actually. Just because you've bought a copy, doesn't mean you can then pass it on to someone else. Likewise, just because someone offers you a pirate copy, doesn't make you less guilty if you get caught using it.

He gave them a picture. I am not sure where the implicit instruction that it was for a specific purpose came from. Without T&Cs surely they could equally argue that he gave the image to them.

You're not familiar with copyright law, I take it?

Without any other agreement, if the initial agreement was for one use only, then that's all it is. Copyright must be given in every instance when an image is used. If there was no agreement from the beginning to this effect, then any subsequent publishing is in breach of law.

See, the OP agreed to supply images to use once, to illustrate the article. He never signed over or waived and copyright. The organisation has broken the Law. It's quite simple.

If someone was driving a car and couldn't produce the Registration Certificate, you wouldn't assume that they must have been given it would you?

But a photograph doesn't require a registration certificate. Taking your analogy, if someone is given £10, who owns the £10? The person who gave the £10 away or the person in receipt of the £10?

You're not familiar with copyright law, I take it?

As I said, I am happy to accept I may be wrong, I am simply providing a Devil's Advocate perspective.

Also, it may be the case that the publication has T&Cs available that state all images supplied become their property.

For example (just found these T&Cs on the BBC site)…
Contributions to the BBC
6. By sharing any contribution (including any text, photographs, graphics, video or audio) with the BBC you agree to grant to the BBC, free of charge, permission to use the material in any way it wants (including modifying and adapting it for operational and editorial reasons) for BBC services in any media worldwide (including on the BBC's site accessed by international users). In certain circumstance the BBC may also share your contribution with trusted third parties*.

7. Copyright in your contribution will remain with you and this permission is not exclusive, so you can continue to use the material in any way including allowing others to use it.

8. In order that the BBC can use your contribution, you confirm that your contribution is your own original work, is not defamatory and does not infringe any UK laws, that you have the right to give the BBC permission to use it for the purposes specified above, and that you have the consent of anyone who is identifiable in your contribution or the consent of their parent / guardian if they are under 16.

9. We normally show your name with your contribution, unless you request otherwise, but for operational reasons this is not always possible. The BBC may need to contact you for administrative or verification purposes in relation to your contribution, or in relation to particular projects. For full details of when and how we may contact you please see the BBC's Privacy Policy plus any local terms where applicable.

10. Please do not endanger yourself or others, take any unnecessary risks or break any laws when creating content you may share with the BBC.

11. If you do not want to grant the BBC the permission set out above on these terms, please do not submit or share your contribution to or with bbc.co.uk.
*In the case of news-related material please note that this may be shared with the BBC's overseas partners; these are all reputable foreign news broadcasters who are prohibited from altering the material in any way or providing it to other UK broadcasters or to the print media.

12. If you have any questions about contributing content to the BBC, please see our FAQs.

m-f

You're wrong.

I was trying to make a helpful analogy to help you understand why. If i didn't know I was right I wouldn't have bothered.

What's the point of "taking a devils advocate perspective"? it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

You've already told us you don't actually know the law on this, but I do.

Also, it may be the case that the publication has T&Cs available that state all images supplied become their property.

You can't unilaterally reassign someone else's copyright – it would require a positive action by the OP.

Stop digging.

See above rightplace – the BBC example clearly shows what I am saying may well be correct. Sorry.

I see you've just added the BBC bit to your post.

It's irrelevant. The OP didn't supply the pic to the mag, someone else did, but they had no right to.

Works the same way as stolen goods. Even if you receive stolen goods in good faith, they don't belong to you.

the BBC example clearly shows what I am saying may well be correct

No it doesn't.

Ah – I see you've now added a bit more to the BBC bit.

Look at point 8, first line.

I few years back I supplied some photos to a magazine to accompany an article

He provided the picture to the magazine, not someone else.

Point 8 would be a fair argument, had he supplied it to the BBC. He provided the image to a different publication which may have had different terms of submission.

Also, it may be the case that the publication has T&Cs available that state all images supplied become their property

for this you would need some form or contract or submission stating those terms. putting a disclaimer in the magazine when the submission is made by email or over the phone is not an agreement to those terms published elsewhere unless there is a specific clause in any communication alluding to those terms.

interestingly the clause 43 of the digital economy bill that was successfully thrown out of the house of lords a few weeks ago (after much lobbying and letter writing by photographers) would have made publication legal under the orphan works legislation, the mag would have just said "we had the images on our database and no idea where they came from" and any retrospective license payment would have been handled by a third party collections agency. there would have been no holding to ransom (rightly so) by the photographer but a pittance fee at the discretion of some civil servant.

Fruit Pastille; why are you using a specific set of BBC T+Cs, to try to justify your argument?

Not applicable in this instance. Any T+Cs would have to be agreed by both parties beforehand anyway. This is not the case here, so the BBC thing is totally irrelevant. The BBC doesn't dictate Law…

why are you using a specific set of BBC T+Cs, to try to justify your argument?

Because it is an example of the conditions a person may enter into (with or without their knowledge) by submitting to a publication. I chose the BBC site for no other reason than I assumed they would have such terms. I could look at The Sun website if you like?

Are you saying then that the BBC T&Cs are not enforceable?

No; the pics were for the band to use in their own promotional material, not for a 3rd party commercial outfit to illustrate their shitty magazine with. The manager had sent the magazine some promo info with pics, in an email, and the used one of the pics. They didn't obtain copyright from me, the author of the work, I never gave anyone permission to publish it further to the initial agreement, so they were in breach. The band manager had no idea that the magazine would use the pic. The magazine's argument was that as they had been supplied the pics by the manager, then they assumed he had copyright. Never assume anything..

Were the pics not used in an article related to the band then?

Otherwise I can't see what the problem is. "Publicity purposes" means sending to the press.