Surely not the last time either.

Working for an online homepage I am constantly frustrated when getting in touch with magazines (Conde Nast in particular) who often won't release images to non-affiliates. I have been told on 2 occasions of the Daily Mail flouting these rights.

On Monday of this week, photos of Peaches Geldoff in her swimwear, credited to an agency. The following day the article was pulled and the images removed from the agency's website. On investigation, it seems that these images were not for online use, but had appeared on the Daily Mail's site. A mistake the agency reassured me 'was not on their behalf'.

Clarification 1

In your article you claim: "Capital Pictures, however, charged New for the image."

This is untrue.

Capital Pictures did not charge New magazine for the picture. I magazine was contacted and told them: "..copyright belongs to Ian Richardson who I believe has been in contact with New magazine either directly or via his wife, Susanna. Any fees should be discussed with them."

A copy of the email sent sent as a cc to Susanna Richardson who had been in contact with me by email on behalf of her husband, Ian.

NEWS EDITOR'S NOTE: We have updated the article to reflect that fact. Thanks for clarifying this.

So where did the picture come from

I think the question to be asked and needs to be answered by the Mail is how this images was sourced?

If it indeed was copied from a third party website then what procedure do the Mail follow when acquiring such material?

Whilst one does not condone trawling for imagery without a care, one has to accept in this day and age that the Internet is a resource like any other. But, if a National Newspaper is going to source imagery from the web rather than through bona fide professional and similar reliable sources, then clearly there must be proper procedures put in place to ensure that such material is verified and identified as to source. Once the creator and copyright owner has been identified then permission must be sought for use, and a contract for use agreed (supply, use and payment).

If the creator and copyright holder is not identified, and if a contract is not agreed then the paper is committing an offence by using it.

Copyright really is that simple - even for newspapers.

Pete Jenkins

http://petejenkinsphotothoughts.blogspot.com

David V Goliath

I think this calls for a small claims court action for say £500 per image. The DM is relying on their size to effectively suggest that as the image is in the public domain the some form of fair dealing applies, I am sure it does not.

This is a clear case of infringement and I would start a small claims action for a reasonable amount of money. I bet they will settle, but it needs an action like this to curtail their attitude. If it is allowed to continue there is a danger they will establish a de-facto right to do so (custom and practice).

Image used elsewhere

I've discovered that a website in Nigeria has used the story from the daily mail that my photo appeared in. Can I claim money for that one and if so, do I claim off the Daily Mail or the Nigerian site?

http://news2.onlinenigeria.com/world/12007-The-United-Nations-Nick-Clegg.html

Also here, http://nomfup.wordpress.com/tag/lena-pietsch/

XGrWkiMcGG

HZTURb a href="http://zfzhzifsurzw.com/" zfzhzifsurzw /a , [url=http://hygeyddpklmm.com/]hygeyddpklmm[/url], [link=http://gbhkoalwsfir.com/]gbhkoalwsfir[/link], http://nxmdrlruvrqb.com/

I have also been a victim..

Not with the Daily Mail I hasten to add, but another newspaper. The image was taken from a web forum I frequent where photographic competitions are held on a weekly basis. I discovered it's use by pure accident. I tried to deal with the newspaper myself, but they would not accept onus, offer an apology, or commit anything to letterheaded paper. In the end I took it to solicitors to resolve, and it took 2 years. The identity of the paper and the terms of settlement are protected by a non-disclosure agreement insisted on by the paper in question.

What really narks me though, is that they (the offending companies I mean) are willing to spend thousands of pounds defending their position and integrity, yet find the idea of paying the photographer (read: victim of the crime) any value of note, abhorrent.

In short, the winners, are always the solicitors - despite the fact that had the Newspaper come clean BEFORE anything was escallated to a legal position, apologised for the use, and paid the photographers fee. They would have saved time, hassle, their reputation, face, the risk of a CCJ, and saved a fair wad of money to boot.

The irony is that naming and shaming landed me with a claim of Libel, despite sticking to the facts. Seems the media is happy to stick the boot in AFTER they have wronged you, just to try and shut you up. And all this, while they openly publish their own court reports on others wrong doing. The hypocrasy beggars belief.

Isn't it time Newspapers woke up to the fact they only hurt themselves in the long run, start to take responsibility for their errors of judgement- and do the right thing. It's not everyone that wants a public apology; but that's still better than having your indescression used as a feature article in a global interest like the BJP.

Another Daily Mail exploitation

The DM used one of my photos on their website over a year ago, without seeking permission or offering payment.
The photo was obtained from my Flickr account, and is licensed under Creative Commons for non-commercial use.
When I eventually had a response from a picture editor, his position was that the Daily Mail website was "editorial", not "commercial", therefore their use was within the CC license and no fee was payable.
I disagree that a page containing large quantities of advertising can be non-commercial, but am unsure how to take this matter further. I certainly don't have the resources for legal action.