It's not sufficient that they were available in a locked filing cabinet in locked room with a sign saying beware of the leopard.
I agree - there must be fair access to the terms. None of us know all the facts but it *may* be the case he gave them permission which is all I was trying to say.
By entering a shop you are accepting their terms and conditions of being there. They don't need to tell you as you walk in
Wrong. The only thing you are bound by, is the Law. And so are they. Any T+Cs extra to the Law must be made clear at the point of entry. IE; 'No work/soiled clothing' etc. The shop must abide within the Law; the clothing regulation may be because of health and safety, hygiene etc, but they must be able to legally justify this. You couldn't have, for example, a set of T+Cs that said every price marked on items would be charged double at the point of sale, as that's in breach of Law.
Did you tell them no press? Sounds like you've been a bit of an awkward sod, if you don't mind me saying. I bet they haven't asked you if they can use any more of your precious photos since.
I gave the pics to the band's manager, and expressed they could only be used for their own promotional purposes, and that no reproduction outside of this context was permissable, and that any 3rd party using any of the pictures would have to gain my permission beforehand. As copyright Law dictates. The magazine broke the Law. The paid up, as they had no defence (although they did try to argue that the manager said they could use them, a charge he denied).
The band split up shortly afterwards, so not much opportunity for them to want to use my precious photos again anyway! 🙁
And you're entitled to your onion that I'm an 'awkward sod', but all I was doing was behaving according to the Law, and protecting my own commercial interests. Sorry if you think that's being 'awkward'...
Wrong. The only thing you are bound by, is the Law. And so are they. Any T+Cs extra to the Law must be made clear at the point of entry. IE; 'No work/soiled clothing' etc. The shop must abide within the Law; the clothing regulation may be because of health and safety, hygiene etc, but they must be able to legally justify this. You couldn't have, for example, a set of T+Cs that said every price marked on items would be charged double at the point of sale, as that's in breach of Law.
So I am wrong yet you go on to explain how I am right - I never said shops can impose unlawful terms did I - I just said you accept the terms by being there 😕 All T&Cs have to be lawful.
EDIT: The point I am *trying* to make is that the OP *may* have accepted some terms when he submitted the pictures just like someone walking into a shop *may* have accepted their terms to be in there. Whether or not he was aware of the terms is similar to someone not seeing a sign setting out terms in a shop - not seeing the terms may not be a defence - the act in the first place assumes the terms have been accepted.
You said:
By entering a shop you are accepting their terms and conditions of being there. They don't need to tell you as you walk in.
Those T+Cs are not 'their's, they are the Law that binds us all. They can specify stuff like dress codes, but have to inform you of those at point of entry. So, they actually do need to tell you as you walk in really. They can't have secret hidden T+Cs that are extra to the Law, and expect you to have to abide by them. Like, you can't impose parking restrictions without having notices informing people of such.
You are wrong anyway, Wine Gum. Just generally wrong. About everything. I, however, am right.
X
mogrim - Member"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.
That's what I thought, I'm speaking to VEGAP who are the photographer´s SGAE!!! They think I have a case and I'm just about to send the BeaureaxFax out to the dude that's taken my pics. But last weekend I was speaking to Antonio del Pino, elite rider and journo with Motorpress-Ibérica who said that the judges follow the line of internet is free. I have to put my faith in the lawyer. Fortunately I think I can fall back on the Berne Convention and use UK lawyers if I need, so I'm looking for a lawyer who knows a bit about copyright.
Back to the thread to catch up.
Those T+Cs are not 'their's, they are the Law that binds us all. They can specify stuff like dress codes, but have to inform you of those at point of entry. So, they actually do need to tell you as you walk in really. They can't have secret hidden T+Cs that are extra to the Law, and expect you to have to abide by them. Like, you can't impose parking restrictions without having notices informing people of such.
Agreed - I accepted that much posts ago - as we have both said, they can have specific terms as long as they are within the law though. Yes?
mastiles_fanylion - Member
It's not sufficient that they were available in a locked filing cabinet in locked room with a sign saying beware of the leopard.I agree - there must be fair access to the terms. None of us know all the facts but it *may* be the case he gave them permission which is all I was trying to say.
Right ok.
But in this particular case, you appreciate that the OP did not give any permission for the magazine to use any pics outside of the context of the original agreement then? Therefore, they are in breach of copyright...
...AND SHOULD BE TAKEN TO A PLACE OF EXECUTION WHEREUPON THEY SHALL BE HUNG BY THE NECK UNTIL THEY BE DEAD!!!!!
What's that nurse? Time for my nap? Ok...
But in this particular case, you appreciate that the OP did not give any permission for the magazine to use any pics outside of the context of the original agreement then? Therefore, they are in breach of copyright...
But it is not clear from the OP that there WAS an original agreement, and to take the BBC terms as an example, the act of him giving them the images *may* have, [i][b]if they had similar terms in place[/b][/i], given them permission to re-use the image. They didn't have to actually tell him or make him sign anything - if any terms were clearly available (and therefore lawful), he *may* have, unknowingly, accepted them simply by giving them the image(s).
They didn't have to actually tell him or make him sign anything - if any terms were clearly available (and therefore lawful), he *may* have, unknowingly, accepted them simply by giving them the image(s).
Well, by the information he's given us, this doesn't seem to be the case. I'm sure you can appreciate that, Fruit Gum.
The agreement was apparently for single use. Without any other agreement being entered into by both parties, the magazine are basically Dead Men Walking....
I think you lot should stop arguing about it until the OP comes back to clarify what he initially gave in terms of permission.
But FWIW, A publication couldn't just declare that anything submitted to them could then legally be published by them as often as they liked.
Although in practice many do take this attitude - and very few photographers complain because they usually have submitted the pic for publicity purposes.
As far as pics on the web go, small-time websites and blogs steal them left right and centre. They usually get away with it because they are not worth pursuing.
Larger organisations warn their journalists not to do this, because they know they are more worthwhile targets. But some still poach pics off Facebook, for example, as a calculated risk when they want to use them on a big story.
They know they won't get into much trouble for it and can afford to pay the snapper anyway.
The agreement was apparently for single use.
Was it?
But FWIW, A publication couldn't just declare that anything submitted to them could then legally be published by them as often as they liked.
The BBC terms seem to suggest they can.
That's the BBC! When you submit stuff to them, they have to make their T+Cs clear, and I'd imagine there's probably something you have to agree to, like a tick box or something.
Unless the OP has done this, then the magazine are heading for the scaffold....
[img] 
[/img]
And the crowds gather....
THat's the BBC! When you submit stuff to them, they have to make their T+Cs clear, and I'd imagine there's probably something you have to agree to, like a tick box or something.
I know it is, the point is that they appear to be a lawful set of terms. I have no idea whether there is an opt in, but the terms say the simple act of giving them the content hands over the rights. This means that any other publication *may* have similar terms.
I am not going to post again now, I have had enough.
Bye.
[img] 
[/img]
I've had a read and was going to post a long reply, but got bored. 😆
Off on a bit of a tangent for a while. 😉
chakaping - MemberI think you lot should stop arguing about it until the OP comes back to clarify what he initially gave in terms of permission.
But FWIW, A publication couldn't just declare that anything submitted to them could then legally be published by them as often as they liked.
Although in practice many do take this attitude - and very few photographers complain because they usually have submitted the pic for publicity purposes.
As far as pics on the web go, small-time websites and blogs steal them left right and centre. They usually get away with it because they are not worth pursuing.
Larger organisations warn their journalists not to do this, because they know they are more worthwhile targets. But some still poach pics off Facebook, for example, as a calculated risk when they want to use them on a big story.
They know they won't get into much trouble for it and can afford to pay the snapper anyway.
I think that chakaping sums it up. A publication may pay for a photo/write in the T&Cs that they own the photo, but they don't have copyright and can not use it in whichever way they want. T&Cs can not include any clauses which are deemed unfair either, therefore should/will not conflict with copyright law.
I think few photographers take legal action for the cost/benefit factor. I had over 200 photos swiped and used on a web site for publicity and another 25 or so used in an editorial web site. That's worth chasing.
Lifting photos from websites is a big issue and the law is slowly catching up with technology.
Happy snapping.
m-f
About 2000 words ago you said
I am happy to accept I may be wrong
You know what, I'm not sure I believe you.
Cor, wasn't expecting all that!
Umm, all I did was take some (fairly) pretty photos which my boss then asked if he could use to illustrate his article with. The article also included photos by another person. I think he sent lots of photos and the magazine chose which photos to use.
Since then, one of the photos they used in the article has been used by them, uncredited, on the last page of the magazine, with text over the top.
As someone said back in the thread, if they stop using it then I'll lose my claim to fame...but if I can get a bit of money from them then maybe that's more important in this day and age...
I think I'll just send them a friendly email and see where it goes from there. Definately not going to sue them or anything! I rely on the organisation behind the magazine for my qualifications that keep me in work, so I'd better not be too bolshy about it!
Cheers for all the input and petty squabbling, you can always rely on mastiles... 😉
You said boss. Were they taken on work time and were they directly related to work? As thats a whole different can of worms. Then you get into it being work's copyright but you can still exercise your rights to be credited.
you can always rely on mastiles...
Wine Gums is safe. Decent feller imo.
Heh! 🙂
Nah, you're all right Wine Gums. Some folk on here are a bit too twitchy, you know?
I think I'll just send them a friendly email and see where it goes from there.
Good start. Let them know you're a bit peeved mind, and that you really do expect some sort of financial recompense for their use of your work. It's only fair.
Hope it works out well for you.
And if not, send me round there...
[img] 
[/img]
I try to have grown discussions - most people can handle it and give as good (or better) than they get. But as you say... 🙂
