What a fool

It's no wonder he didn't get what he wanted.

He took a public picture, not a contracted picture, and is asking more than what a staff photographer gets? He got more than what the NY TImes pays me for contracted pictures. A thousand pounds is way over priced.

£1000

If he had been contracted to take that picture, £150 would have been a good fee. In this case, the Daily Mail lifted the image without his authorisation and published it five times - that we know of. £1000 is more than reasonable, especially considering the news value of the image at the time.

Olivier Laurent
News and Online Editor
British Journal of Photography

So £150 is OK, then?

Quite regardless of what any other photographer might find acceptable, if they'd asked him, at least he would have been able to say 'No". I find it hard to believe that the comments appear to actually condone the Mail's actions

£300...

The Mail generally pay £150 per commission. However as the picture was used with out authorisation a fee of £300 would be more reasonable...and fee he would likely get paid.

£1000 - Very Reasonable!

Given the usage and violation of copyright - the fee of a £1000 is very reasonable. Get your County Court Summons in!

Unethical

£1000 is fair, if he took them to court for copyright infringement he would get it plus they would have to pay costs

The sky is the limit

This newspaper Stole his images then complain when he makes "So they say" ridiculous demands. Fair enough find the guy who stole his photo and charge them with copyright theft see how long it takes them to pay up. In my opinion they are getting off lightly as he can name his price.
After all the photo copyright is "HIS" and not theirs. UP Your price the longer they hold out....

Sleeze!

Photographers shouldn't have to check every publication/website to see if their images have been used. Before publication a price should be agreed. Publications, let's get back to basics and play by the rules eh. I don't go in a shop take something and then walk out without paying. If I get caught then pay up, if I don't then I've saved some money. It stinks! What other business does this?

Get real

@ Olivier Laurent Your comment shows, in my opinion, how totally out of touch the BJP has become to aspects of the industry it tries to report on.

The picture had been put, by the photographer, into the public domain by his selling it to Sky. The picture was not "live" when the Mail used it nor, was it exclusive. Most importantly the image was not identified as the work of the photographer. A quick scan of the file info on the image on this website tells me the make and type of camera, exposure data, lens type etc. But nothing else no name or contact details of the photographer, no minimum fee for repro info. If you don't identify your work how can you expect to get paid.

The Mail and other papers will pay for repro within the industry fee structure providing they know who the pic belongs to. The answer is not to put "orphan works" into the ether and them bleat when you don't get paid for them. If you want to get paid for your work negotiate a fee that works for you and the paper don't make outlandish demands for what is after all a pretty ordinary news pic. Time to get real.

Two separate offences

As I read this article, the newspaper has offenced the photographer's ideal rights 10 times. (i) when publishing his photograph unauthorized, (ii) when the photographer isn't credited correctly, (iii-x) times 5 (one for each use of the photograph).

All of these offences by themselves qualify for doubling the photographer's fee. If the photographer, under normal circmstances, could charge £150, then he can legitimately demand £150 × 10 = $1500 in this particular situation.

In my opinion, the newspaper should be happy not to be punished harder for these cruel offences.

GET REAL ????? @Paul

Have you used goggle to see what orphan works actually means, also while on goggle have a look at public domain.
It isn't as simple as the the word "public domain" suggests as for not being able to find the photographer did they bother asking SKY where they got the picture from in the first place.
"I doubt it"

Really you have to Get Real!!

@lee Actually old son I've been involved in orphan works legislation negotiations for several years and I've been a Fleet Street photographer and picture editor for more years than I care to remember. Also, I have represented the interests of my fellow photographers on such diverse bodies as the Council of the Chartered Institute of Journalists (where I was also Chair of the Photographers Division), The British Photographic Council, The Committee of the BPPA and even, The UK Press Card Authority Board of Directors. I also, know how to spell and use Google. Which by the way I don't need to know what the terms "Orphan Works and Public Domain" mean as I have been dealing with copyright issues from both sides of the publishing fence since well before the current active legislation, the CDAP Act of 1988 came about so please if you want to discuss this matter sensibly don't try and give me lessons in sucking eggs but, do what most people do at the various lecture I have given on the subject that is ,ask ask advice on how to avoid getting ripped off I'm almost always happy to give it

£1000 is fair

£1000 sounds fair to me. also once the dailymail stole his picture and it was put on there website full res(the daily mail website is a favourite of photo thefts all over the world)it will have been nicked by bloggers and papers and websites all over.which he will never get paid for.but saying that this is an orphan because he never put his details in the ITPC silly !

Olivier really

Olivier do you really think that £150 is fair pay for a days work for a photographer. i certainly do not.

@ Paul

So being a Member or advisor to all these people surely You of all people must recognise that the newspaper did NOTHING to find this guy. All they had to do was ask the sky news team who he was but as always in life they thought that this was easy pickings. I would just like to say also this was not an attack towards you I was simply pointing out the failings of the newspaper concerned and I apologise if it appears this way. If this was my photograph I would not back down and think this guy should stand his ground and demand they pay up

Jeff and Paul

Jeff, you're right, £150 is not a fair day rate, far from it. And never said it was. I'm just saying that if the Daily Mail had contacted Thomas before it used the image and offered £150 for it, it might have been considered an "okay" rate (for that one single image)...

Paul, I'm worried to learn that, while you "have represented the interests of my fellow photographers on such diverse bodies as the Council of the Chartered Institute of Journalists (where I was also Chair of the Photographers Division), The British Photographic Council, The Committee of the BPPA and even, The UK Press Card Authority Board of Directors," you say that Thomas put his image in the public domain by selling a license to Sky News for them to show his image. There is a huge difference between licensing an image and giving away your copyright of that image. In this particular case, Thomas sold a license to Sky... that doesn't mean that the image is now in the public domain, far from it. It means that Sky News has been authorised to show that image. And the Daily Mail didn't have a license to show it.

If we go by your reasoning, that would mean that any published or displayed image is in the public domain, allowing anyone to do what they want with it. in effect, it would destroy the entire photographic industry...

Ignorance

Paul Stewart I cannot believe the degree of ignorance you have demonstrated in your post. You may well have been a Fleet Street photographer and represented X,Y and Z but in all fairness it's probably best if you don't. I have never heard such a ridiculous statement that just because it was published by Sky and in the Public Domain it's fair game for it to be used. Absolutely not! Reproduction of pictures is strictly controlled by licenses which determine the use, duration, media etc. By your understanding any picture that has been published can be used by anyone without paying a penny. Your understanding is wholly wrong.

You also complain that the metadata does not identify the photographer, well as an experienced 'Fleet Street' photographer I find it incredible that you are completely unaware of the fact that metadata can be stripped out very easily. It does nit mean that the photographer never added that information. How on earth can we prevent Orphan works when there is no legislation to prevent important metadata from being deleted so easily.

As to the Mail paying industry standard rates, there is no such thing. They may want to pay £150 but having stolen someone's intellectual property it really is down to negotiation and newsworthiness.

Look up Banier

"The Mail and other papers will pay for repro within the industry fee structure providing they know who the pic belongs to. The answer is not to put "orphan works" into the ether and them bleat when you don't get paid for them. If you want to get paid for your work negotiate a fee that works for you and the paper don't make outlandish demands for what is after all a pretty ordinary news pic. Time to get real."

Time to read the Banier Judgment I think………

http://www.thelawyer.com/permission-before-you-publish/78733.article

But the judge said: "This may be common newspaper practice and one which newspapers normally get away with. The risk of infringement proceedings may, from a business and circulation point of view, be worth taking. It may be economic to 'publish and be damned', but it is plainly unlawful and the sooner this is recognised the better."

I'd go for £2,000

Look up Banier

"The Mail and other papers will pay for repro within the industry fee structure providing they know who the pic belongs to. The answer is not to put "orphan works" into the ether and them bleat when you don't get paid for them. If you want to get paid for your work negotiate a fee that works for you and the paper don't make outlandish demands for what is after all a pretty ordinary news pic. Time to get real."

Time to read the Banier Judgment I think………

http://www.thelawyer.com/permission-before-you-publish/78733.article

But the judge said: "This may be common newspaper practice and one which newspapers normally get away with. The risk of infringement proceedings may, from a business and circulation point of view, be worth taking. It may be economic to 'publish and be damned', but it is plainly unlawful and the sooner this is recognised the better."

I'd go for £2,000

@ Bob @ Oliver

Thank you for telling it how it is I am a year 1 BA photography student even I was sure they cant just steal photograph copyright.
As with "orphan works" I simply couldn't work out how @ Paul OR the Daily Mail could even begin to think this is an orphan work all the Daily Mail had to do was contact the Sky Team but at least there is 1 thing right in pauls comment I spelt google wrong. Corrected now.