Using images without consent

[ChrisH]

I discovered yesterday that a church sponsored group had used an image of mine in a promotional magazine without my knowledge and consent. I have also discovered a hotel has also used one of my images on their hotel website again without my consent.

I have posted these images in the past on C in C for comment or competition, my Wordpress Blog and my Zenfolio website. Any suggestions of what i should do?

[Rob Ekins]

Take a look at this link.. The UK Copyright service.

Note section 5(1) -This can get things sorted quickly.
If the infringing material is being published on-line, also contact the service provider(s) for the site to let them know of the infringement. This may be:
An online service provider that hosts the site, or
The company that providing the network access for the site
In many countries an Internet Service Provider may also be liable if they knowingly allow infringement on their systems to continue, so they will often act swiftly to remove the offending content if the site owner does not.

[Dave Humphries]

What do you want them to do Chris?

What can they do now, realistically?

Unfortunate situation, although I'm not surprised, given the nature and quality of your shots. (that's meant as a compliment)

Did you have your contact details in the EXIF data of the shots (wherever published)?
If not, something to consider going forward?
Although, if lifted from your blog or Zenfolio, they must have had contact details, surely.

HTH, Dave

[Rob Ekins]

What can they do now, realistically?

They can pay the invoice that Chris presents to them for using his work and since there was no formal agreement to use his work he could put any price he likes on that invoice and see how it goes from there.

[ChrisH]

Thanks Robbie and Dave for your helpful comments.

[Dave Humphries]

They can pay the invoice that Chris presents to them for using his work

Yes that's one approach Rob, perhaps the right one for Chris, perhaps not ...

It sets in motion a chain of events that could result in a lot of stress for Chris - is it worth it?

Would he be happy with published recognition/apology (by the charity, at least).

Does he want the hotel to:
a) just stop using the image?
b) acknowledge him with a discrete watermark?
c) pay for it?
d) some other option?
e) acknowledge photographer publicly plus some other benefit in kind*; e.g. a voucher Chris, or visiting friends/relatives, could use to stay at the hotel free or much cheaper?
* e.g. no 'cash cost' payout necessary

My point was, regardless what you or I might do, what does Chris want?
This is going to affect him far more than the people at the charity and hotel (or their web site company).

Your link was certainly helpful; e.g. he should gather evidence now, before any approaches are made or even final decisions taken by him on a future course of action.

EDIT:
Always pays to think ahead in these situations and (eventually) give them a way to settle that has acceptable (face saving) benefits to the person making that decision in the company.

[Rob Ekins]

All very good points Dave,

Over to you Chris..

[John 2]

The trouble is that if everyone just turns a blind eye when this happens, it won't be long before it becomes a free for all. The hotel in particular, being a commercial entity, should be made to pay. The church is probably closer to being charitably based and you might be more inclined to be more lenient but you should still retrospectively make them understand that they are being allowed to use an image under licence albeit free of charge.

[William W]

My point of view is 'stealing' is stealing; it is really that simple no matter who does it. Something in the Bible references that, too.

Also, on the matter of stress: stress is something that WE allow to invade us. Having had a few images stolen from me has never caused me any stress, stick enough images up on the WWW or send enough files out to people and images will be stolen, it is that simple, but not stressful.

If I choose to send an invoice expecting payment for use of my image, but after my image was stolen, that too has never caused me stress. Sending the first and the second letter of demand for any payment not forthcoming, also never caused me any stress: it is a really simple form letter just insert the name and address as applicable. Engaging a professional debt collector who takes 30% of the debt owing has also never caused me stress - I expect the invoicing and debt recovery procedure would be very similar, in England: but it might depend upon sending a cease and desist order first, you should check that out before sending an invoice.

In summary: if the facts are that images were stolen, then it is really pretty simple when it comes down to the choices available:

> do nothing
> ask the thief to remove the images and cease and desist the use and/or
> seek remuneration and that might be to send an invoice for use already; the further use; or both . . . or a simple credit, might be adequate remuneration.

In any case and at the very least, I think it very important that the 'thief' acknowledge in writing that this type of behaviour is, in most parts of the world, illegal: and in so doing they do tend to show remorse for their actions, because frankly it is in some arenas getting way out of hand: and getting a grip on this illegal activity begins by addressing it it one's own backyard. So if these are local entities, then I suggest that you do, do something about it, because it is much more difficult if it is an entity which located in another country.

WW

[William W]

They can pay the invoice that Chris presents to them for using his work and since there was no formal agreement to use his work he could put any price he likes on that invoice and see how it goes from there.

I think that in England, the leverage to that action might be as a result of a removal order or cease and desist usage demand is dismissed without any action within a reasonable time frame.

I mentioned that in my previous, just thought it a good idea to reiterate that point again, separately.

WW

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Bill,

Not everyone is the same, or may not be if 'fired up' and led to expect remuneration of a 'skies the limit' figure for their (or their institutions) transgression - plain and simple, that's very unlikely to happen.

I agree that ideally the theft should be acknowledged as wrong by the perpetrator, apologised for and desisted in writing and/or paid for. Without getting legal in the courts, I suspect no employee or charity volunteer is going to sign such a letter and send it, for fear it would be publicised and make them look bad. No doubt a carefully drafted letter might avoid some issues.

If Chris, or anyone else whose images have been stolen, can go in to the recompense process, after the 'knee jerk' outright anger/indignation phase of their natural response behaviour has passed, with the attitude that anything gained is a benefit, but expect little or nothing, to avoid being disappointed (at best) or consumed by rage (at worst), then I'm all for it.

YMMV,
Dave

[William W]

Hi Dave,

I think you might have missed the point of my message and/or I didn't explain it clearly.

My main points I was making regarding the choosing to send an invoice are:

- firstly, if that action is chosen, it need not be a stressful action, it is actually quite easy here, and probably is easy in England, too

- secondly, I mentioned and I reiterated, that the predicate for sending an invoice would be that the take down request or a cease and desist order was being ignored

- thirdly I did not mention "getting legal in the courts" I mentioned sending a business invoice, sending business letters of demand and a then handing that business over to a profession business debt collector

Also, Chris has not mentioned, nor do I read as implicit that he is or was at any time having"'knee jerk' outright anger/indignation phase" - he might be angry, I don't know, but he hasn't mentioned it.

In any case, I think that my Post #9 has been interpreted as having emotion or having been driven by an emotional response - and nothing could be further from the truth - it was driven and predicated simply as a practical business response - it really doesn't stress me that people do choose to steal images. Moreover I have, what I think is a really logical and unemotional process to deal with that type of unacceptable behaviour - and I can do that without any emotion at all - and Chris asked what could he do and I was offering what I do as a set of choices for him: importantly a set of unemotional choices, for him.

WW

[NorthernFocus]

The first question you have to answer for yourself is what do you want them to do? Then simply contact them and state your case, very plainly, non-threatening, matter of fact. Then go from there. I'd not draw any conclusions up front. In point of fact what they've done is illegal. But what's not so clear is what was their intent, where did they get you image, etc.

There are many possibilities. Such as someone else sold them your image and they are unaware of the theft. Their 16 year old IT wizard is simply used to the free flow of imagery nowadays and never gave it a thought. Or in fact they knowingly obtained a copy of your image and are trying to get away with using it hoping you'd never know. Or....

The point is that by approaching them, identifying yourself as the owner of the rights to the images, and giving them your expectations, you will find out pretty quickly how they ended up using your work. Then you can go from there.

[Shadowman]

I was reading an article recently regarding copyright issues and it stated that some courts (at least in the U.S.) won't even bother hearing the cases if the damages are below certain levels. This link is relevant to U.S. courts but may have some information regarding U.K. cases.

www.ppmag.com/news/redressing-copyright-wrongs

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Bill,

As you have probably surmised by now, if anyone, I'm the guy that might get stressed over an issue like this, well in the past I might, at least.

Taking your points in turn (purely for reference):

"firstly" - I agree that sending a few letters/invoices off need not be stressful IF there's little expectation of them being met immediately. I'm not sure it should be the first thing to do though.

"secondly" - OK, I may have misunderstood the time element in your process.

"thirdly" - no you didn't, I was (badly, it seems) trying to make the point that anyone in an organisation receiving such a request is unlikely to admit to it in writing if that might show them in a bad light, especially the hotel, where their liability insurance/legal advisor might have something to say about that. I'm no solicitor, but I don't think the collection of a 'debt' such as this can be enforced in the UK without some form of court order.


I was assuming that anyone would naturally have immediate 'knee jerk' outright anger/indignation phase (which might last from a few seconds to several hours, depending upon personality). My point, not well made, was simply not to rush in to anything while it persists. As you say, Chris hasn't said how emotionally hurt he is/was by these infringements and I agree you didn't either.

Perhaps I'll "stop digging" at this point, before the hole I find myself in gets any deeper

No offence intended to anyone and none taken by me.

Cheers, Dave

[James G]

Hi Chris, there are some interesting replies to your query so far.

I'm now going to offer some 'weasely' advice as to how I would approach the issue.

Firstly it does depend in part on to what extent you feel aggrieved but since you posted I assume you would like to take some action to address the situation.
So as a first step, taking action along the lines that Bill suggests is precisely what I would do myself.
I would approach both the offending parties in exactly the same way regarding recognition of your ownership of the source material, but I would consider the separate value of your images to each of the parties in terms of the business or income they could realistically expect and set your compensation requirement accordingly.
My own feeling is that if the Church group is raising funds for charity as opposed to the Hotel's aim of promoting more business I would probably settle for acknowledgement from one but monetary compensation from the other.

If the responses you get back are unsatisfactory, I'd suggest you consider the Small Claims Court as a way forward.

There is plenty of useful information about the process available on the web (http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-righ...l-claims-court )

I have used it successfully twice in the last 20 years. The process is relatively straight forward, but on both occasions I used the Small Claims process because frankly, the costs of engaging traditional legal advice and subsequent litigation made any 'real' compensation that could be achieved a none starter.

[flashback]

A lot of good information presented, two points I might make:
1) It's your image, so no need to be apologetic, wishy washy or anything other than, It's Your Image. If someone has found your image of sufficient quality as to want to use it to promote their business then they owe you. How much is up to you.
2) There was some discussion some time back about photographers should never do work for free, and yet here I see a number of references to letting the church sponsored group off scot free, why? Anything that helps anyone, any business (and yes a church is indeed a business) is a commodity that almost always costs money. Say what you will about churches but they do not and should not get a free pass for using someone else's I.P. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't one of the major tenets of a christian-based religion....thou shalt not steal. Not a lot of wiggle room in that for the church to deny compensation, someone from the church, overseeing the church-sponsored group had to approve the image and the way in which it was used. I mean, for Dog's sake, if you can't trust a church who can you trust? Aw who am I'm kidding, you can't trust churches either.

[James G]

I see a number of references to letting the church sponsored group off scot free, why?

Jack, I agree totally, that religious institutions have the same responsibility as any other commercial or secular organisation to deal honestly and ethically. If they have not then all the sanctions that the law and society allows apply.

The advice I offered to Chris was based on how I would handle the issue myself, if it happened to me. It is in my nature to explore 'intent' as part of any 'forensic' investigation of events, before I decide on which specific sanction(s) I choose to invoke.

if you can't trust a church who can you trust? Aw who am I'm kidding, you can't trust churches either.

Having achieved late middle age or early old age... (whichever works for you), I have learnt that no form of organisation conceived and instituted by humans can be trusted. But I've also learnt they are more likely to be incompetant rather than corrupt.

[William W]

Chris H:

Upon reading Dave Humphries' Post #15 made me realize that many people could easily misunderstand my meaning - so just for clarity and simplicity - my comments are:

Don't get stressed by it; take time to think it through; choose what you want as a result, but do that with the understanding that result might not happen as you would like it to happen, and then do what you need to do.

Best of luck.

WW

[barrydoig]

As a church attender and a photographer I understand the problem. I suggest you write to them and point it out. A low key approach is better at first as it may have been done in ignorance. True, 'ignorance is no defence', but I think a less litigious approach is better.