Copyright breach by the Ilford Recorder

[joebloggs]

Something a little different hopefully.

I am a budding photographer, and recently got some very good action shots from a fire local to me.

I offered some of the pictures to several news papers, and sent copies of some of the images to one paper that used them.

Other than the newspaper that used my pics, i did not send anyone else any pictures but referred them to a website where they could be viewed and if interest they should contact me.

So far no problem.

 

Last night my other half came home with the local paper the Ilford Recorder, lo and behold 3 of my pictures were in there, they didn't even acknowledge my email and certainly did not get any images from me.

The Ilford Recorder is a weekly news paper and is part of a large media related group, Archant.

The pictures 7 in total throughout the 4 pages covering this incident have been credited to two photographers namely Tony Barclay and Jules Dann.

Jules Dann being listed on the Ilford Recorder website as an in house photgarpher.

I am thinking this was perhaps a mistake but will be trying to establish if both or either Tony Barclay and Jules Dann have or are claiming any of my images to be theirs.

 

One of the images in particular is attracting a lot of interest, so as someone trying to make headway in this field it is vitally important that exposure of my work is properly credited, it can mean the difference between a decent sale or not.

 

I contacted the editor of the newspaper who did everything he could to evade the questions being asked and informed me that the images were supplied to him from a third party.

To cut a very long story short, what has happened is the newspaper has gone to my site and taken images from it and printed them as part of their four page story on this incident.

 

I offered to settle the matter very quickly by inviting the paper to pay for the images at a slightly higher rate than normal and re print them with the proper credits in the next edition.

The reason for the reprint is to ensure that the credit matches the photo.

 

The Editor has now got all stroppy and says he will pay the asking price but will only add a clarification statement (if anyone has ever noticed one of these it is hardly noticeable) and would not identify any particular image so in essence the credits to the published images would remain unaltered.

So i have declined this offer, and stated firmly but politely why, i also indicated that if they wish to contend copyright of the images how they were obtained and not settle i would have no option to to look into the legalities of the matter.

The reply was straight forward, thats our final offer take whatever action you want.

 

So what options do i have here?

If there is anyone who could point me in the right direction i would be very grateful.

Money isn't the issue here it is principle and the fact the images were taken from a site that clearly states nothing is to be copied, reproduced edited etc etc without my permission, each page contains a contact link.

Edited June 18, 2008 by joebloggs

[berrti]

looks like a straight forward breach of copyright but as to whether you can force the paper to reprint the pictures with the correct credits I'm not sure.

I doubt if a judge would force this (although I'm not certain). I think you would probably be best to settle for what has been offered.

Edited June 17, 2008 by gizmo111

[joebloggs]

Thanks for the reply, that does seem to make sense with regards forcing a reprint.

That being the case though, i would have to think along the lines that damage is likely to have been caused as the photograph has been printed and credited to someone else.

As an aspiring photographer looking to getting into the news type area, this has not done me any favours at all.

Speaking to a couple of people elsewhere, they are seeking the views of copyright specialists.

I appreciate it may be difficult for some to understand what all the fuss is about, but it is really important to me.

[berrti]

I am an amatuer photographer myself and so fully understand your annoyance with the situation.

[joebloggs]

Cheers mate much appreciated.

[MrShed]

Shockingly unprofessional, but agree with the above posters. A judge is likely to only enforce what has already been offerred.

[Fuzzgin]

I understand too, I'm also an amateur photographer so I'd be furious ifit happened to me. Sorry I can't offer any advice other than you've been given. Definitely worth contacting a specialist. What about one of the specialist photography websites. maybe you could get advice there?

 

Good luck!

[ReasonableRon]

I'm no expert here, but if you are going to be putting these images on a website is it not worth adding a fairly bold watermark to the images to prevent copyright abuse?

 

A chap I know at work has got a program that does this quite easily.

[joebloggs]

Yes i did consider the watermarking of images.

The problem being of course they can interfere with the image and for the most part is a very time consuming effort.

It is a trade off that one has to calculate.

In this case though, one could reasonably expect that a media organisation would know better and be aware of any issue regarding copyright infringement.

That said the main page of my site clearly states images are not to be used etc etc and each subsequent page has copyright notices on it.

There is really no contention over the copyright owner and indeed how the images were obtained, they have pretty much held their hands up on this.

It is the options available to remedy the situation that is the bone of contention.

My view is perhaps over simplified in that the pictures have been put inot the public domain and credit given to someone else.

The best anology i can think of is perhaps this.

If a movie was released and was liked by the public and people went to see it in increasing numbers, but the credits were given to say Spielberg as opposed to Joe Bloggs, then joe bloggs's does not suffers in that he does not get the recognition that should be his.

Then the movie producers dont pay Joe Bloggs for his work or tell him his work is being aired then joe bloggs suffers as a result.

[Conniff]

Contact the parent newspaper and have a chat, see what they have to say.

[BankFodder]

I disagree altogether with the pessimistic view of the level of damages here.

 

This is a clear breach of copyright by an organisation which is highly experienced and which should know better.

 

Furthermore your moral right of attribution under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act have been breached. This is a serious matter which is badly compounded by the false attributions. Your reasonable requests have been brushed aside. I sense a basis here for exemplary damages.

 

I suggest that you conduct no further correspondence with them for the time being.

 

Research their sales figures and likely readership figures. There are online services which provide this kind of information. You might also talk to their advertising department. tell them that you are going to place some ads and you want to know what kind of audience you will be reaching. If they have this information on a rate card or some other writing then get it in writing.

 

Checkout if they have any sister publications and whether they also have used the pics. If so, then get their circulation stats as well.

 

Get copies of the paper(s) containing the pics - about 4 copies. Keep the papers intact so that a judge can get a good feel for the way in which the pics have been used, their prominence etc. If the papers aren't available anymore then ask for back issues from their subs department.

 

Please will you ask one of the mods for my email details and send me a scan of the pages carrying the pics plus evidence that you are the copyright owner.

 

Is there a photo journalist union or organisation to who we can talk in order to get an idea of the kind of damages which we might typically expect? Also what is the going rate for these kinds of photos and what do you base that calculation.

 

Please get all of this done as soon as possible and then we will begin a new line of communication with the paper but this time they will be more likely to sit up and take notice.

Edited June 17, 2008 by BankFodder

[Rooster-UK]

JB.

Check your inbox. I've sent you Bankfodder's email details as he suggested in the above post.

Regards, Rooster.

[BankFodder]

Thanks. It's just that my PM box is always full and I can't send or receive at the moment

[BankFodder]

By the way, did you make a pitch to this particular paper as well?

[BankFodder]

I've taken the time now to go back to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act and check the situation.

 

I have to modify my original post on this.

 

S.70 - Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 deals with the moral right of attribution.

 

I'm afraid that the right must be asserted before it becomes a right. Very unsatisfactory and I can tell you that in continental Europe it is much stricter. Furthermore, it seems that photos used in newspapers are incapable of carrying the right of attribution in any case. It really is a very poor situation but nothing to be done about it. Sorry I got it wrong earlier. It has been a long time since I visited this legislation.

 

However, there is no doubt that there is a copyright breach. The false attribution is a serious matter and I would still suggest that you gather the information which I originally suggested and contact me.

 

By the way, does this paper have a website and are these photos going onto their website? Get screenshots and send me the link

 

I still have had no email contact from you and I think that your interests might best be served by emailing me asap

Edited June 18, 2008 by BankFodder

[joebloggs]

BF.

Email sent.

Just wanted to get as much info in one hit as possible so apologies for the delay.

If you need anything else please let me know.

Thanks again for your time i really do appreciate it.

[raydetinu]

I would not deal direct with the editor again, try the MD or financial director or indeed their legal department.

[joebloggs]

Please note the original post has been edited to include the name of the paper.

Ilford Recorder.

[joebloggs]

BF.

Thank you very much for the telephone call earlier today.

It has cleared up several matters and given some very good ideas on how to proceed with this.

Your straight forward logic and advice is very much appreaciated.

I will forward on the information you have requested as a matter of urgency.

[buzby]

It won't surprise you that this happens all the time. Not, I hasten to add as a systemic flouting of the rights of photographers, but in this digital age the inability to attach (and KEEP attached!) copyright material attribution rights. The NUJ (National Union of Journalists) and if you plan to make a career out of selling your pix, I suggest you check them out. I have colleagues where the NUM organiser negotiated amicable settlements and they still continued to work for the papers subsequently.

[BankFodder]

It won't surprise you that this happens all the time. Not, I hasten to add as a systemic flouting of the rights of photographers, but in this digital age the inability to attach (and KEEP attached!) copyright material attribution rights. The NUJ (National Union of Journalists) and if you plan to make a career out of selling your pix, I suggest you check them out. I have colleagues where the NUM organiser negotiated amicable settlements and they still continued to work for the papers subsequently.

 

This is a very good point to make. While you are preparing the rest of your material, it won't at all hurt to contact the NUJ and see what they have to say.

Buzby is quite correct that a litigious approach may not be the best approach if there can be some other longer term objective.

[joebloggs]

Buzby.

It doesnt surprise me that this happens all the time, but in this case i would certainly expect the Ilford Recorder to have known better.

One of the issues that this has brought up for me at least is that having done a deal with the Evening Standard (i did make this clear in my email to the Recorder) i did not want the same images being sold and published again. But by using the material they did this has happened.

So given that i am looking at the NUJ and others as one of the gatekeepers for issuing of press cards i have had a bit of a double whammy.

Firstly the issue of credits for the pictures and secondly if i were to use the Ilford Recorder items as eveidence of published material it would be almost identical to that already published.

It is difficult enough trying to breakthrough into this line of work, so the press card issue is crucial to me especially at the moment being recently made redundant therefore unemployed.

I dont think i would be overstating this state of affairs and the delays in the process as being the difference between being able to have the opportunity to start earning money and continuing to struggle to make progress.

There were plenty of other images that could of have been used that i would of been more than happy to supply in this case, that would have been useful to me and provide evidence that this was not a one off couple of shots, but part of a series covering the whole incident that had been well thought out and considered.

I don't expect things to be handed on a plate and i dont mind working to get what i want, this though i feel is well and truly out of order and has had serious consequences for me.

[battyboomboom]

To continue on the subject that Buzby brought up, as a photographer myself, I ensure all of my images have IPTC meta data in them, which I was asked to do by a picture editor for a sunday newspaper - as they read the meta data in the photo for title, caption, copyright etc.

 

While I don't know your setup with the website etc, watermarking can be done easily through various programs (the one I use to sort pics, apply IPTC data, and upload to websites with watermarks is called Photo Mechanic, I'm sure others do the same), so consider doing that and ensuring your pics are watermarked and your name is beside the photo on the website.

 

Good luck.

[joebloggs]

Batty.

I am curently looking at several methods of ensuring or at least lessening the chances of this happening again.

How precisely i will implement this i have yet to decide, as diffeent organisatiosn have different requirements and or expectations.

it is looking highly likley that this will actually be work done on the website itself.

But it is very clear that i need to take some form of action to better protect my work.

[BankFodder]

I see that Google is already throwing up lots of hits for the Ilford Recorder in relation to this discussion on this site.

 

I notice that one of the hits took me to this page on the Ilford recorder:-

Ilford Recorder

 

which contained

Content

All material on this site is protected by copyright. You may only copy, download and reproduce it for your own personal use. You must not use it for reproduction on any other website, or in any way for commercial purposes or for gain unless you first obtain our written consent.

 

I see that the CDPA gives judges quite a discretion as to the calculation of damages for breach of copyright. It is certainly capable of going beyond actual loss.