Cheeky feckers!

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 .

It’s exactly the same, the perpetrators a denying the photographer financial reward.
You’re not a photographer, are you?

Charity donation ?

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

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.

Very reasonable for you to consider it. Is Luca going to be happy though? Considering they’re his competitors, he’ll be super cool if he is.

THIS
£400 seems ok as it will cost way more than that to fix and one would assume they can back charge to whichever idiots did this

How does your mate Luca feel about your offer? Apparently he was fuming when he first contacted you about a pic of him advertising a rival business to his own? £200 doesn’t sound much in order to douse the flames of righteous indignation…

I’d thought you were pro, ff, sorry about that.

Opinion: you should be, you’re very good.

£400 split 2 ways? You settled too easy. Make them remove it! The amount will soon go up.

captainsasquatch – Member
I’m not saying that what has happened is right but it’s not the same .

It’s exactly the same, the perpetrators a denying the photographer financial reward.
You’re not a photographer, are you?

Once again it’s not the same . It’s a bit like if your neighbour knew your wireless internet password and used your internet without your knowledge , he has taken something that he had no right to , but it would be easy for you not to know about . Somebody steals your tv then you would miss it straight away .

Once again it’s not the same .

Ok, it’s theft in the same way that pirating movies, songs, software or inventions is theft.

Except it is worse than that because:

a) it involves small companies and individuals who will feel the impact much more than huge corporations.

b) it is very public and implies an endorsement that isn’t given.

c) a direct competitor benefits from it while a friend loses out.

Personally I think that £400 is letting them off very lightly.

Ramsey Neil – it isnt though if you think about it.
A similar thing exists with music. You put it online, someone copies it, then plays it every day on their ipod. There is nothing you can do about this, they arent making anything from it, and you have not lost anything, as it wasnt for sale, but for listening.
Just like photos, look at them every day.
Now, the music is sampled, and used to promote something. The person who wrote it isnt getting a thing now, but the person who copied it is making money from the original music. He is sued, and loses, as he should have paid to use it.
He coudl have paid an initial fee to use it, or paid a royalty based on sales. Either woudl have been fine, but, just taking it and using it to make money, that is very much like theft.

Some nice pictures there Footflaps,hope it gets sorted.

Somebody steals your tv then you would miss it straight away .

So if you notice it immediately, it’s theft. If you don’t see it immediately, it’s OK to take it.
I think you’ve got a bizarre way of looking at things.
You have no appreciation of the work that a photographer puts into taking a picture or the value that should be attributed to it.

It’s theft in the way that not stealing something is theft, ie it isn’t. Still copyright violation though and ff is well within his rights to pursue it as he sees fit.

He claims ignorance saying it was the graphics company’s choice of ‘free’ image.

I’m calling bollox on that. Theres no way any designer worthy of the name would just randomly nick images, with a complete disregard for copyright, as we’ve usually been on the receiving end of that kind of carry on. I’m guessing they found the image, supplied it to the designers, with the instructions ‘we want to use this image’

If they did (and I doubt it very much), then I’m sure they’d be giving them the bill, plus expenses, and kicking them right into touch on account of being a bunch of clowns

If you’re using somebodies work to promote your business, then you’re profiting from it, and thus you should be paying. Its as simple as that!

It **** me right off this ‘all content is free’ assumption bollocks. 👿

Luca must be a pretty accommodating bloke to allow his image to float around promoting a rival potentially in perpetuity.

Good point, wouldn’t Luca prefer they just remove the pic?

You might not get paid then of course.

You have no appreciation of the work that a photographer puts into taking a picture or the value that should be attributed to it.

You are making quite an assumption there .

FWIW I think you have a bizarre way of looking at things although I seem to be outvoted on this one .
That’s often a good sign round here . 😀

How does your mate Luca feel about your offer

Well the damage is done, and his real beef is the fact that no one asked him. A polish duo operating out of the UK isn’t a real threat to a local guide in Italy at the end of the day. Plus all the locals will be laughing at them everytime their van turns up as they’re really advertising a local guide rather than their own company!

Personally I think that £400 is letting them off very lightly.

Yes, but I’m not vindictive and thankfully I don’t have to make a living from a camera!

You are making quite an assumption there .

You could look at this way, for free they have taken advantage of the following costs:
Flickr Hosting fees – £60/year
Camera Insurance – £250/year
Camera Maintenance (cleaning sensors lenses etc) – £300

And then the trip from which that photo came, riding for a week with a top local Enduro racer cost over £1500….

Settling for £ 400 is way too little.

I’ve not seen a case as blatant as this for a long while.

You may want to have a look here:

https://www.imagerights.com/

Your copyright is fine, settle for whatever you want, only your model has signed a release form for the use of their image in a commercial usage? You might find settling puts you at risk of your model suing you for using his image to make money.

A couple of serious questions:

1. When does some random riding down a hill become a model with release rights? and
2. Are there any juristdiction issues with it being taken in Italy

No hijack intended, hope you get sorted.

1. When does some random riding down a hill become a model with release rights?

AFAIK always if the photog is making money/using for commercial gains.

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

🙄
Twenty-odd years ago, when I worked in print, obtaining a photo from a photo library meant actually getting a transparency which was then scanned, and returned. A single use charge for one publication was £500, and if the tranny wasn’t returned, which happened once when one got misfiled, that was another £500.
No greed, only stupidity apparent in the above remark. Someone takes a photo, it’s then used by someone for commercial purposes, the photographer is due proper financial recompense. No argument, that’s what should happen, and if you think otherwise, then try that on with a photo from Getty Images, and see what happens.
I mean, it’s only a photo, ffs.

1. When does some random riding down a hill become a model with release rights? and

The person being photographed doesn’t acquire any rights* the rights to the photograph stay with the person that takes the photograph. That is why the rights to this image got a bit complicated as the person that owned the camera equipment didn’t actually take the photo.

* unless they contracted the photographer to take the picture, in which case ownership of the rights will be hammered out in the contract.

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

If the designers are offering, and charging for, a professional service then ignorance is no excuse. They’ve ripped off both Footflaps (by not paying for his service) and their client (by charging for their own services when they’ve failed to carrying out their job competently), tarnishing their clients reputation in the process.

he has taken something that he had no right to , but it would be easy for you not to know about . Somebody steals your tv then you would miss it straight away .

😕

The person being photographed doesn’t acquire any rights* the rights to the photograph stay with the person that takes the photograph.

This is what I thought, but wasn’t sure.

I’d probably add in that if they start getting arsy about it you could suggest they add a caption under the pics on the vans with luca’s details on it? Credit where it’s due an all that

The person being photographed doesn’t acquire any rights* the rights to the photograph stay with the person that takes the photograph.

Not sure that is correct entirely. Some time ago the company I worked for legitimately purchased an image of a rugby player and used it in an advert.

Now it turned out that because it was ‘endorsing’ something they had to pay a quite considerable sum to the player and the RFU.

No doubt there are different rules and rights etc but at the end of the day I don’t think someone can use an image of someone else without permission in that way.

If the designers are offering, and charging for, a professional service then ignorance is no excuse.

That’s pretty much what I said after your selective quote ended.

The person being photographed doesn’t acquire any rights* the rights to the photograph stay with the person that takes the photograph.

In copyright this is correct. Use of someone’s likeness in a commercial context is a different matter however.

Otherwise I could snatch a shot of David Beckham looking suave and use it to promote my own aftershave, which I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t get away with.

For commercial use you need the subject’s permission, for journalistic use you don’t.

For commercial use you need the subject’s permission, for journalistic use you don’t.

Yeah I would guess it is something like that which was where my employers fecked up.

1. When does some random riding down a hill become a model with release rights? and
2. Are there any juristdiction issues with it being taken in Italy

when it’s used for commercial use.
your moral rights are not impinged by being photographed in Italy.

The person being photographed doesn’t acquire any rights* the rights to the photograph stay with the person that takes the photograph.

you are wrong. (along with a lot of other opinions in this thread) the subject has moral rights, that image could not be used for a news item “REHABILITATED PEADO RIDES BIKES PAID FOR BY TAXPAYER” as you have a moral right to not be associated with such a news item if you dont want to. would be different if you signed a model release and waived all rights in doing so then your image could be used for an AIDS drug advert (subject to BMA guidelines)

re the OP, i would have doubled or tripled the amount, they dont have a leg to stand on legally. if you want to know the ins and outs of image copyright and licensing then get yourself a copy of ‘beyond the lens’ published by the AOP, dispells all the copyright/image rights myths and funny ideas about ‘borrowing’ people have.

and to the freetards? do you have a well stocked fridge/comfy sofa/sky TV? mind if i come round and help myself?

And should the photo have been taken in France then the subject has a whole pile more legal rights under French law – people have the right not to be photographed (so strictly speaking you’re supposed to ask the permission of everyone you take a photo of) and full rights over the use of their own image.

Lucky it was in Italy 😉

I’ve had experience of having my copyright abused a couple of times. Two separate parties are currently using my images without express permission, in fact. However, one is a social enterprise which makes very little money and does good stuff, so I’m willing to let that slide. The other is a book publisher which has used a portrait I did of a friend, to illustrate her chapter. That, I’m not so happy about. The difficulty is that she may well have believed I gave her permission to let the publishers use it, which I didn’t. Makes it a bit tricky, as I don’t want to upset her, but my image is being used without my permission, in a commercial context. I am, by law, entitled to fair payment. As the amount will be relatively small (a few hundred pounds at most I’d imagine), I might be willing to let it slide as well. The worst aspect for me, is that I’m not even credited as the photographer! Hmm.

Footflaps should sue their arses off though. 😉

And should the photo have been taken in France then the subject has a whole pile more legal rights under French law – people have the right not to be photographed (so strictly speaking you’re supposed to ask the permission of everyone you take a photo of) and full rights over the use of their own image.

Read the story of Robert Doisneau’s ‘The Kiss’.

fascinating, barty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Doisneau