Forum menu
Local paper used ph...
 

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

Posts: 1
Free Member
Topic starter
 
[#7704100]

Our local free paper used one of t'wifes photos this week.
Nothing special but she took a picture of a large fallen tree over a main road with our lad (9) next to it for scale. It went on the facebook page of another local paper (not same company as this paper is published by) Tree was cleared before anyone else could be bothered to photograph it I guess and so they ran a little story on page 9 with maybe 4x6cm photo, credited to her but first we have heard of it! (Also the story is factually wrong by about three miles re: where tree fell over!)
It is in newsprint so they can't just take it down -circulation of this paper is 40,000 or so copies per week.

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

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?)

I am also intruiged to see that when photos go on their website next week,any member of the public should be able to pay money to the paper to purchase a tea towel, set of placemats or whole poster with a picture of my son next to a fallen tree!


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 4:07 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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...


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 4:10 pm
Posts: 8100
Free Member
 

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?


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 4:15 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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...


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 or not. She has copyright (unless she signs it away). Copyright is automatic and a given, the paper has even less of an excuse if your wife was traceable through facebook.
[url= http://www.londonfreelance.org/feesguide/index.php?&section=Photography&subsect=Regional+newspapers ]NUJ website used to have a good list of amounts to charge[/url], the newspaper in question should be familiar with this too (in case they think you're ripping them off).


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 4:15 pm
Posts: 4116
Full Member
 

Does it really matter?


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 4:16 pm
Posts: 1912
Free Member
 

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]


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 4:21 pm
Posts: 10
Free Member
 

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


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 4:26 pm
Posts: 1
Free Member
Topic starter
 

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.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 4:29 pm
Posts: 1
Free Member
Topic starter
 

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 😉


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 4:34 pm
Posts: 5171
Free Member
 

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? But of course money is always the most important thing isn't it?


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 4:37 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Is your wife earning a living as a photographer?

No relevance in any way. 😕


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 5:00 pm
Posts: 13282
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 5:06 pm
Posts: 1
Free Member
Topic starter
 


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?


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 5:08 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 5:19 pm
 DrJ
Posts: 14007
Full Member
 

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


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 5:44 pm
 poah
Posts: 6494
Free 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


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 5:48 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

How much cash are you looking for?


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 5:48 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 5:53 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 5:57 pm
Posts: 2034
Full Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 7:49 pm
Posts: 17333
Full Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 7:53 pm
Posts: 40432
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:00 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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

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


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:01 pm
 Drac
Posts: 50604
 

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?


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:03 pm
Posts: 17783
Full Member
 

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...


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:06 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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/


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:15 pm
Posts: 12336
Full Member
 

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


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:15 pm
Posts: 27
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:15 pm
Posts: 9390
Full Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:18 pm
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

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


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:18 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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?

Have a look on the link I posted. You should be able to charge more if it's used to promote UKIP though.
Makes you think.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:19 pm
 Drac
Posts: 50604
 

Captainsassquatch misses the point shocka!


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:21 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Captainsassquatch misses the point shocka!

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.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:25 pm
Posts: 33973
Full Member
 

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

This. Any photo taken in a public place can be used and published no matter who's in it. There is nothing in data protection or child protection that disallows it, as it's a public place.
I once took some photos of kids absailing down an abutment of a bridge carrying part of a Sustrans route, and the teacher got really shirty, saying I couldn't take any photos without the parent's permission, comes under data protection, yada, yada, yada...
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...


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:26 pm
Posts: 5300
Full Member
 

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?


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:27 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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

Only if the photographer gives permission. You, as the photographer, had that right- the teacher didn't. Unless the photos in themselves were illegal in nature.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:30 pm
 Drac
Posts: 50604
 

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.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:31 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Still missing it then.

What's your point caller?


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:33 pm
Posts: 2308
Full Member
 

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?


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:34 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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....


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:38 pm
Posts: 78478
Full Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:39 pm
 irc
Posts: 5332
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:41 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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.

We are in a new era in regards to the copyright and reproduction of photos. It will be interesting to see how legal the T&Cs of Facebook are if legally challenged. The main problem, as the local newspaper knows, is that the cost of suing is more than the photo is worth (sorry op).


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:45 pm
 Drac
Posts: 50604
 

What's your point caller?

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


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:49 pm
Posts: 78478
Full Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 12/03/2016 8:50 pm
Page 1 / 2