[Closed] Local paper used photo (with our child in it) without asking.

Did your wife post the photo onto the facebook page as a member of the public?

If so I wouldna thought you have a leg to stand on...

And also is it worse that they print a picture without permission of our 9 year old boy? (knowing his age as it was on the original facebook comment that the paper lifted the picture from?)

[img] [/img]

Erm, why is this a problem?

Did your wife post the photo onto the facebook page as a member of the public?

If so I wouldna thought you have a leg to stand on...

Does it really matter?

Under Facebook’s current terms (which can change at anytime), by posting your pictures and videos, you grant Facebook “a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any [IP] content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP License”). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it. Beware of the words “transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license.” This means that Facebook can license your content to others for free without obtaining any other approval from you! You should be aware that once your photos or videos are shared on Facebook, it could be impossible to delete them from Facebook, even if you delete the content or cancel your account (the content still remains on Facebook servers and they can keep backups)! So, although you may be able to withdraw your consent to the use of photos on Facebook, you should also keep in mind that if you share your photos and videos with Facebook applications, those applications may have their own terms and conditions of how they use your creation! You should read the fine print to make sure you are not agreeing to something that you don’t want to have happen.

[url= http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/ ]source[/url]

Was the kids name referenced? From running reports for cycling club stuff I have been told its fine to publish pictures but not with names unless parental consent is given

Mackem - Member
Does it really matter?

I refer the honourable gentleman to:

first thought is of course "how much money should she put in the invoice?"

There have been some strong opinions published on 'Photos for free' in the world of online cycling journalism on this very site, wondered if the same principles held fast for the little people.

Barrykellet: no. But photo is credited in the paper to mum of the kid with same surname. Which I expect doesn't count. Actually this paper reports lots of youth sports, and will caption photos or reports goals scored etc with a child's first but not last name eg 'Barry scored in dying seconds of first half past outretched fingers of keeper Dave." Kwality journalism round our way 😉

There have been some strong opinions published on 'Photos for free' in the world of online cycling journalism on this very site,

Is your wife earning a living as a photographer?

I work in local press. You throw your image onto social media and you have pretty much lost rights to anything but a credit. An image of an underage person should be unused or tweaked such that it cannot be identified.

Is your wife earning a living as a photographer? But of course money is always the most important thing isn't it?

They have no idea if she is a photographer or not as they never asked. 30 seconds clicking on her fb profile next to the picture they appropriated, and sending her a message is marginally more time consuming than just crediting her name as they have done.

Its a newspaper not a charity. They employ journalists and photographers and get revenue from advertising. Presumably they manage ok as its the same paper with many of the same regular advertisers that I delivered for 1p a copy 25 years ago, and still in business.

Wife it seems had the only picture they could find to go with the story they wanted to print. Too late to pay a photographer to go and take their own picture of it cos the tee was cleared and traffic chaos restored to normality. Does that mean its ok to just circumvent how you normally report and print someone else's picture?

You throw your image onto social media and you have pretty much lost rights to anything but a credit

True. Sometimes they ask, sometimes they don't.

For example, from today:

[img] [/img]

https://twitter.com/PhilglasSwiggot/status/708598335490400256/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Isn't there an issue about using a child's picture without permission?

DrJ - Member

Isn't there an issue about using a child's picture without permission?

nope, none unless the image is used to advertise but then its the same for an adult. People don't have copyright

How much cash are you looking for?

You should definitely invoice for a portion of the sales of the, free, paper - that'll learn em.

A friend who was a former professional photographer told me once that the standard way to sort this is to phone them asking to buy an advertisement that is the same size as the photo.

Whatever their answer is the price that you would then request and usually get - might be different for pro's though.

Next weeks free newspaper headline . . . "kid sues parents for publishing his picture and keeping all the royalties". Mum blames dad, says she wanted no part of the nonsense.

I had a picture published widely# in virtual and print last week. I could have either asked for them to remove it, or seek compensation as the copyright holder, with appropriate attribution. I didn't bother given the circumstances . Is it lost revenue or the fact that a child of unattributed nature is in the picture? Papers like to publish and wait for the repercussions (which they are used to dealing with). At least it makes for speedy publishing.

#my kona paddy wagon is a little famous now.

Your wife should send them an invoice if she feels she deserves payment.

Facebook's rights grab is irrelevant to the matter between your wife and the newspaper.

Let us know how it goes.

Soooo ....
Your first concern is for how much the picture is worth ??

That is a very cretinous attitude in my opinion - get a life .

I posted a picture of my son on the worlds most viewed and used social media network. It then went into print on a very small paper, I'm outraged. How much cash can I get?

I feel your pain.
Someone was trying to promote their guiding company and used one of my videos without asking.
I wouldn't have minded but when I asked him to compensate me via some route advice he responded by telling me that he was a professional MTB guide and couldn't give me any help without payment.
Not sure if he still posts on here or not...

Send the paper an invoice. Work out for how much here: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/purchase/price-calculator/sb10069475ab-001

For more advise, post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/

Lasty, read the post again. There's one genuine question in amongst a few blatant quip statements for added humour.

I posted a picture of my son on the worlds most viewed and used social media network. It then went into print on a very small paper, I'm outraged. How much cash can I get?

I'm a lazy journo who trawls social media for stories with free pictures so I don't have to find any actual stories of any real value to the reader or pay for the content.

I don't get this. You post the picture top the FB page of one newspaper and it is used in print by another paper. What is your complaint? Can't be privacy as you already published it. Can't be protection from paedophiles as toy already published it. Can't be cash as you gave it away for free already to another paper.

my son was in a photo on the front page of the local rag some years ago. I was delighted. The end.

I posted a picture of my son on the worlds most viewed and used social media network. It then went into print on a very small paper, I'm outraged. How much cash can I get?

Captainsassquatch misses the point shocka!

Captainsassquatch misses the point shocka!

poah - Member
DrJ - Member
Isn't there an issue about using a child's picture without permission?
nope, none unless the image is used to advertise but then its the same for an adult. People don't have copyright

Soooo ....
Your first concern is for how much the picture is worth ??

That is a very cretinous attitude in my opinion - get a life

You think it's OK for a newspaper to use your own personal photographs for their financial gain?

Is your wife earning a living as a photographer? But of course money is always the most important thing isn't it?

Unfortunately many professional photographers can no longer earn a living because it's so easy for people to steal photos these days, again, for their own financial gain.

I work in local press. You throw your image onto social media and you have pretty much lost rights to anything but a credit.

I'd like to hear the reasoning behind this one, or are we just talking the attitudes that exists in the media?

Any photo taken in a public place can be used and published no matter who's in it

Ambiguous Drac in not being clear about point shocka!! It's not about the money, it's about how the copyright is abused. Mock away, but try and understand copyright first.

Still missing it then.

Still missing it then.

nk it's OK for a newspaper to use your own personal photographs for their financial gain?

It was a free paper according to the OP so surely there won't have been any financial gain?

Anyone seen the latest OS Dark Peak map with the mtb'er on the front, riding towards Hollins Cross? That's my dad, he didn't know about it. He doesn't mind but out of interest I read about using someone's image and apparently it's ok if they can't be recognized. Of course, I recognized him straight away. Green on-one, alfine....

I work in local press. You throw your image onto social media and you have pretty much lost rights to anything but a credit. An image of an underage person should be unused or tweaked such that it cannot be identified.

I'm (arguably) a hobbyist photographer, and whilst the second part of that statement might be your policy, it's certainly not law. There are exceptions - if the child is accused of a crime, for instance - but unless there's a geographical or other restriction in place (eg, on a railway station) you can photograph members of the public with impunity.

As for the first part, I'm not sure. A public photo on FB muddies the waters somewhat, I'd refer to the licencing stuff posted on the previous page as a starter.

It was a free paper according to the OP so surely there won't have been any financial gain?

If the paper is supported by adverts then there is financial gain since advertisers only pay because people read the paper. The paper wouldn't be read without the stories and pics.

As for the first part, I'm not sure. A public photo on FB muddies the waters somewhat, I'd refer to the licencing stuff posted on the previous page as a starter.

What's your point caller?

He's more concerned about payment than the image of his son.

He's more concerned about payment than the image of his son.

Well, he might have the chance of objecting about the first and seeking remuneration, but he's got buckley's about the second.

Told him he was talking bollocks, I could take photos of what I pleased, and he really ought to check his facts before mouthing off.
He didn't take that very well...

That'll teach them for looking out for the kids under their charge!

He's more concerned about payment than the image of his son.

Facebook don't claim you lose copyright. You grant Facebook a licence to use images but retain copyright. Just because Facebook can use your image doesn't mean anyone else can.

Yes, you retain the copyright to your content. When you upload your content, you grant us a license to use and display that content. For more information please visit our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which contains information about intellectual property, as well as your privileges and responsibilities as a Facebook user.

https://en-gb.facebook.com/help/193430577370347

Though a local paper using a pic of a tree is a bit of a storm in a tea cup IMO.

[img] https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvIHnhxQRslNQ-e5PFZ7wrTwLUuFiUz4m9autaWWTodV83LL7_ [/img]

So you're happy for local nonces to fwap over your child as long as you're getting paid for it?

*not read all of topic due to rugby induced beers*

That'll teach them for looking out for the kids under their charge!

So you're happy for local nonces to fwap over your child as long as you're getting paid for it?

I don't get all the hysteria about photographing kids doing normal, everyday activities tbh. I can't see the reasoning behind it, and really can't see what it has to do with noncing. It's a kid standing next to a tree.

Getting into the local paper is an achievement, surely? Having your photos stolen however, is not. Maybe it balances out, but doesn't make it right.

I work in local media and you can't take images from Facebook without permission. My recommendation is to call the desk and ask who gave permission to use the image?
They won't be able to answer this I suspect.
Photographers are wary of copyright scribblers much less so in my experience the picture is yours and remained so publishing it in Facebook does not change that fact.

It's a kid standing next to a tree

Which paper is it. Depending on the group I might be able to search for it and find out who filed the caption the fore who stole it.

"It not about the money . . . . "

Theft is theft.

So you're happy for local nonces to fwap over your child as long as you're getting paid for it?

I hate to break it to you, but local nonces can look at your children using the tried-and-tested method of "going outside."

Devious bastards!

I'd probably get the bombers out!!!

Then I'd put them away, sit down... reflect and get over myself.

Then I'd put them away, sit down... reflect and get over myself.

Hi! You must be new here...?

Doesn't make any difference whether she's a member of the public or not, no difference whether she put the image in the public domain

Donald: the newspaper is not Facebook, so unless Facebook sublicensed the use of the image to the newspaper it's irrelevant.

[quote=pablojm ]A friend who was a former professional photographer told me once that the standard way to sort this is to phone them asking to buy an advertisement that is the same size as the photo.

Given the OP's wife took the photo, if he's lucky they might give him a discount

@konabunny - Agreed

Public domain has a specific meaning in copyright law (and it's not how you use it).

This is all a bit confusing.

If you take a photo in a public place of pretty much ANYONE you own the copyright the second the camera photo/camera goes click in UK.
The subjects can be Kids(not yours) , adults, dogs, cat does not matter public place there is no issue so long as it's for none commercial purposes.

If that image is then use for commercial purposes you need everyone in that image to have signed a model release. Otherwise you cannot use it for commercial purposes/personal gain.

So any image you take the copyright is yours.

If you post that image on Facebook / any social media platform the press can then "argue" this image has been released into the public domain and so as a piece of "news", in the public interest it "may be used".

BUT the copyright of the image is still the person who took the image and if the news paper or anyone else used it for advertising etc You could screw them for copyright infringement.

If your lucky depending on the size of the image used they may offer you £25.00 for the use of the image in the paper especially if they did not credit the original source but you will not be talking telephone numbers that's for sure!

I am not a lawyer or legal professional just had a few images published over the years.

I don't know how many court test cases have been used yet in regards to media using social media images.

FROM BBC

Legal Issues

The re-use of material from the internet can raise legal issues of privacy and copyright. A strong public interest reason for using a photograph can help justify re-use without permission, but you should not automatically assume that pictures or video you are seeking to include can be used under 'fair dealing'. Advice is available from BBC Lawyers.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/social-media-pictures ]BBC guidance of social-media-pictures[/url]

That's just crap and the law has gone in the wrong direction. It should be protecting the rights and not diluting them. But I also call bullcrap on the argument. If I take a photo, you don't have the right to use it as you see fit without my permission; see my UKIP reference above.
Sorry art I tried to protect you.

No I didn't, but educate me.

When works enter the public domain
Generally speaking, artworks fall out of copyright and enter the public domain in the UK 70 years after the death of the artist.

There are a few exceptions:

Sound recordings, ?lms, broadcasts and cable programmes are protected for 50 years from the date of making or the date of release if the release occurs within 50 years of it being made
Engravings and photographs taken on or after 1 June 1957 that remained unpublished on 1 August 1989 are protected until 2039, even if that is longer than the life of the artist plus 70 years. There’s more information on older unpublished works here.
Artworks that are made in an industrial process and marketed in suf?cient numbers may only be protected for a shorter period of 25 years
Copyright in typographical arrangements of a published edition lasts for 25 years from the end of the year in which the edition was ?rst published.

basically... I think the general rule of thumb is, if you don't want your pics to become public property, don't publish them on social media

Captain: okay, great, now you know what "public domain" means, reread what you wrote:

Doesn't make any difference whether she's a member of the public or not, [b]no difference whether she put the image in the public domain[/b]

ask for $90,000....

[url= http://wersm.com/no-your-instagram-photos-arent-yours-and-someone-else-can-sell-them-for-90000/ ]Just saying...[/url]

If that image is then use for commercial purposes you need everyone in that image to have signed a model release. Otherwise you cannot use it for commercial purposes/personal gain.

Bet it's a right pain for a football photographer to go around all the fans with a release form at the end of a match!

Don't confuse the ownership and copy rights on an image with the rights to privacy of the person appearing in an image. Very much depends on context, and how identifiable the person is.

Random unidentifiable child next to a tree ? Not such a big deal.

Prince George at age 12 sitting in his garden smoking Malboros and reading an adult magazine ? Quite a big deal.

The photographer owns the rights to both images, publication of them is a different set of issues.

This thread is useless without pictures

This thread sums up society today 🙄

Bet it's a right pain for a football photographer to go around all the fans with a release form at the end of a match!

not the same thing.

Used to be a right of passage to get photo in local rag.... What's the world come to.

A mate takes pics for the local rag .I think you get about £12 to £15 quid for the first photo

Are the tea towels on sale yet? I'd like to buy one for my private collection.