[Closed] Cheeky feckers!

That was just stupid of them! What did tey think would happen if thy pinched someone's photo?

Clowns

He claims ignorance saying it was the graphics company's choice of 'free' image. Either way, I'm taking them to the small claims court unless they agree to settle first.

For a while Saddle Skedaddle's vans were using an image of mine, but they had the decency to license it first!

Your going the other way on the van, that'll cover them 😆

Mate and I were pictured at his wedding as best man and groom, they used that photo for ages in their publicity. I never did get round to speaking to them!

They almost got away with it as well...

One of Luca's pals spotted the van in the Alps, snapped a photo and sent it to Luca (who is the rider in the photo) as he thought it odd that a rival guiding company was using his image on his 'turf'. He then sent it to me fuming that I hadn't asked his permission to license it to a rival of his...

So not only did they nick the picture, they nicked and used one of a direct competitor? The mind boggles at such spectacular idiocy. 😯

EDIT: And photoshopped their logo onto a rival guide's t-shirt!

I'd be starting at £5000.
It'd cost £1000+ to replace those van vinyls, then there is anything else they have used.
A commercial photographer would charge a minimum of £500 to go out and take that photo, they would also get the subject to agree to the final images use, - would you like it if your mate had took your pic, then you were on the side of a van advertising?
They are in the shit and cannot deny it - the Graphics Compnay and the User are both liable for costs in its use.
Sue the bastards.
Get better advice about costs from a dedicated pro photographer site.

Two issuer spring to mind, first compright of the image. They need to prove you gave them copyright over the image. Second model release, the riders image is being used as an advert. He also has a claim against the company.
Make sure you stick it to them. Blaming the graphics company is bollecks! They'd have to have signed off on the advert.

Good man. Glad it was spotted and you were told.
As per those threads re discounted bikes, some people think 'cheeky' is perfectly acceptable without actually thinking about what it does to someone else's livelyhood

****ing Apple spelling correct!

There are some numpties around.

Also, using a photo of a well known local rider who used to podium in the Euro Enduro scene is not very smart! Luca even designed a bike park course, he's guided us down his own DH courses. Everyone out there knows him.

If it was the designers, they would not have a clue who he was.

I had a load of work images used for a european conference - in the same industry we were in. The claim from me dissolved into multi language multi country arguing, and all the images were pulled from the website. I never recieved any compensation.

Pure greed at play in this thread. Suing and what not. Jeez just chill out it's only a photo. Take it as a compliment.

Different image, yours has the rider leaning to his right but he's leaning to the left in theirs.

😉

Pure greed at play in this thread. Suing and what not. Jeez just chill out it's only a photo.

to late but what mike said....

steveirwin - Member
Pure greed at play in this thread. Suing and what not. Jeez just chill out it's only a photo. Take it as a compliment.

Its footflaps livelihood at stake. He's a professional photographer.

steveirwin - Member
Pure greed at play in this thread. Suing and what not. Jeez just chill out it's only a photo. Take it as a compliment.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/exposure

[quote=codybrennan ]
Its footflaps livelihood at stake. He's a professional photographer.

Panto: "Oh no he's not"

Panto: "Oh no he's not"

But he is a very keen amateur and, having had a look at his Flickr page, not without talent/expensive equipment. This all takes money to acquire and deserves some compensation if an entity wants to use his efforts in a commercial setting.

Panto: "He's behind you!"

Pure greed at play in this thread. Suing and what not. Jeez just chill out it's only a photo.

If he has copyright it's also theft...

One of Luca's pals spotted the van in the Alps, snapped a photo and sent it to Luca (who is the rider in the photo) as he thought it odd that a rival guiding company was using his image on his 'turf'.

Professional or not it's his image and has been used without permission.

We made a similar (albeit genuine) mistake a while back. A temp image used for design mock ups was so similar to the rights free one supplied by the client that it slipped through the net and onto the live website.

Turns out, it was an image owned by Getty Images, who are notorious for taking companies to the cleaners over copyright infringement.

Entirely our own fault, and we held out hands up for it but it still resulted in me signing a cheque for several times what a days photography would have cost.

A hard lesson learned that day.

The fault/blame, legally so ands with the client - not the design agency, we just took it on the chin because it WAS our fault.

Personally, I'd be chasing the cheeky sods for a small fortune given the competitor circumstances involved here. Get your client involved too!

I thought if a photo is on flicr you lose rights to it? One reason I don't use that platform.. I'll be happy to be told differently if'm wrong...

You can copyright your pic and Flickr encourage the use of creative commons licensing which gives you a huge selection of rights. Putting something online does not remove your rights as a creator.

Pure greed at play in this thread. Suing and what not. Jeez just chill out it's only a photo. Take it as a compliment.

http://creativecommons.org/choose/
and the license on the pic itself on Flickr lists

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

he is a very keen amateur and, having had a look at his Flickr page, not without talent/expensive equipment.

Backhanded compliment of the week!

As regards the OP - I'd totally expect it to be ignorance rather than malice, but they should still pay you a fair rate plus reasonable penalty.

I was gonna Google the company involved but no way am I typing "dirty 2 ride" into Google.

😆

I'd totally expect it to be ignorance rather than malice

Would have looked more professional if they had used someone with index fingers poised on the brake levers. 😉

Mate and I were pictured at his wedding as best man and groom, they used that photo for ages in their publicity. I never did get round to speaking to them

That sounds different, I'm sure a wedding photographer has a clause saying they can use their own photos of you in their promo material... 😕

OP is right to be annoyed IMO!

Footflaps / Ben Freeman

Best of luck to you. I’ll be following this thread with interest.

mikey-simmo - Member

Two issuer spring to mind, first compright of the image.
**** Apple spelling correct!

I fear your device is infected with the (all too common) ‘Stanley Unwin’ virus. 🙂

I'm not a pro and had they asked nicely they could have used it very cheaply. All I'm asking them for is the fair commercial rate for the photo. Plenty of companies / individuals ask to license my photos and offer to pay. It it's for non commercial / academic use then I let them use them for free. For commercial use they pay the going rate - which isn't that much (compared to the cost of having a van wrapped in a custom print vinyl).

Agree with the "this is theft" stuff.
Can't help but feel a little for the guiding co though, it is entirely likely that these MTB types aren't overly familiar with copyrights and stuff and were led by the media agency. Now they have photos plastered all over their vans which aren't theirs to use, and are now looking at £1000's worth of costs. Pretty shit.

Interesting POV, the thief who steals your TV or car because he admires it should be allowed to get away with it as he's ultimately paying you a compliment. And it's only a TV/car.

That is a bad comparison to make . If you have physical property stolen then you have to replace it as it is no longer there .
I'm not saying that what has happened is right but it's not the same .

and are now looking at £1000's worth of costs.

I've offered to settle for £400, which is very reasonable for use as their main brand image. I'd split it 50:50 with Luca as they don't have his permission to use his image either.

I'm not saying that what has happened is right but it's not the same .

[quote=footflaps ]
I've offered to settle for £400, which is very reasonable for use as their main brand image. I'd split it 50:50 with Luca as they don't have his permission to use his image either.

Charity donation ?

Only if he feels like it. It's money earned at the end of the day.