Daily Mail accused of lifting Flickr image [new update]
Mail Online used Steve Leachman's photograph of Katrina Darling without the photographer's authorisation.
Three photographers now claim that the Daily Mail and Mail Online have used, without authorisation, several "all-rights reserved" images they posted online
Author: Olivier Laurent
18 Apr 2011 Tags: CopyrightFlickrDaily mail
On 13 April, BJP reported that photographer Steve Leachan had found that the Daily Mail and Mail Online had used, without his knowledge and authorisation, one of the images he posted on his Flickr account under an "All-Rights Reserved" notice.
The article - Meet Kate Middleton's cousin, the Queen of Burlesque (who likes to strip to Rule Britannia) - features one of Leachman's photographs of Katrina Darling, one of Middleton's "second cousins, once removed."
BJP's initial story prompted photographer Vicky Tuff to contact us on 14 April claiming ownership of the second image found in the Daily Mail's article [shown on the right]. "I have unfortunately been caught up within the same story, presuming my image has been lifted from Flickr and used without my permission and published," Tuff told BJP. "Since discovering my image being used, I've found numerous online news links using, cropping and crediting the Daily Mail for my work."
Now, another photographer, Nicholas Smith, has come forward claiming that his photo of Katrina Darling has also been used, without authorisation, by the Daily Mail in the same story. "I'm not entirely certain where it's been taken from, but at a guess from the quality I'm guessing Facebook," says Smith.
Leachman first told BJP on 13 April that his own watermarked image had been taken from his Flickr account or personal website, and had been airbrushed to remove the watermark - upon closer inspection of the image, BJP can confirm that the image used by Mail Online appears to have been airbrushed using Photoshop's Clone Stamp tool.
Leachman added that, while he had worked with Darling several times, they had agreed that he would never sell the images. Since the publication on Mail Online, the photographer has also found his photograph used by several international blogs and publications. It remains unclear how these sites acquired the image.
Tuff added: "Having Contacted the Daily Mail concerning this on several occassions, I have been told several [different] stories. [They claim] someone representing the photographer gave permission. [They also say] there is also another photographer claiming outright the image is his."
Tuff is determined to receive a full apology from the Daily Mail and compensation.
BJP understands that Darling is currently taking legal action against the Daily Mail and Mail Online.
John Toner, freelance organiser for the National Union of Journalists, says: "It is ironic, if not surprising, that the newspaper of 'lawr-n-order' should have such a flippant attitude to copyright infringement. You couldn't make it up. Theft is theft, whether it is a burglar making off with your flatscreen TV or the Daily Mail stealing your photograph."
He adds: "The Daily Mail is like justice - it should be done and it should be seen to be done."
"At Editorial Photographers UK & Ireland, we're well aware that the Daily Mail is notorious for sourcing photographs from a variety of online sources, such as Facebook, Flickr and Google Street View," says David Hoffman, an EPUK moderator. "Unfortunately, UK copyright law allows any would-be infringer to publish without asking permission in breach of copyright knowing that, if caught, they would only have to pay the amount they would have paid in the first place. The sad fact is, for the infringer, copyright infringement in the UK is almost always cheaper than obeying the law."
The Association of Photographers, the British Press Photographers' Association and the Bureau of Freelance Photographers have not returned BJP's request for comment.
The case is the most recent in a long series of copyright infringement claims leveled at the Daily Mail. In May 2010, Mail Online published three images shot by Emily James of Just Do It. The images, published on Twitpic, were shot at the St Vincent polling station in Dalston on election day, "where large numbers of people were unable to vote because the high turnout," according James, who raised the issue with BJP.
While her images were used, after authorisation and payment, by other networks and print titles, James claims the Daily Mail failed to contact her before publishing them. So, she says, "we wrote them an invoice. We took the standard rate per picture recommended by the National Union of Journalists, £130, and multiplied it by three for use without our knowledge, consent, or permission."
Upon receiving a £1170 invoice, the Mail's online picture editor Elliot Wagland answered, according to James, that he couldn't pay "the amount you have requested, these images were taken from Twitpic and therefore placed in the public domain." He added: "We are more than happy to pay for the images but we'll only be paying £40 per image."
After BJP reported on the infringement, the Daily Mail moved to reaffirm that it was not the newspaper's policy "to breach photographers' copyrights," and that, a spokesman says, it will be "happy to look into individual cases."
However, in November 2010, the Daily Mail was forced to issue another apology to a photographer after it used his images without authorisation. The following month, Mavrix Photo, a Los Angeles and Miami-based celebrity photography agency, sued The Daily Mail for copyright infringement, alleging that the newspaper had used up to 10 of its images without authorisation.
in January 2011, Thomas Welfoot, a student photographer that took part in the student protests in early November 2010, told BJP that his photo of Edward Woollard, the 18-year-old who threw a fire extinguisher on police forces, has been used five times by The Daily Mail and Mail Online without his authorisation and without payment.
In fact, the Daily Mail has even been accused of distributing photographers' images without authorisation, as highlighted by one case BJP reported in June 2010.
The Daily Mail has, constantly, refused to comment on the record.
This article was first published on 13 April 2011. It was updated on 14 April when a second photographer, Vicky Tuff, contacted BJP with similar claims of copyright infringement by the Daily Mail. The article was again updated on 18 April after a third photographer, Nicholas Smith, revealed that one of his images had also been used without authorisation in the same story by the Daily Mail.
Comments
I tire of the assumption that because it's online, it is public domain and therefore free. I've seen my own watermarked images in printed catalogues.
He should sue. They would lose. And it would be a landmark case.
This is so ridiculous, they should have at least the minimum amount of respect for the photographers by paying them for their work. So ridiculous. To airbrush out the watermark is even worse as it is malicious. What are photographers to do? Protecting yourself while trying to improve your profile is proving to be more and more difficult. If a major organisation can do something like this it really paints a discouraging picture for striving photographic artists.
Well said Mark and Leon, agree with you both on all counts. How is a photographer to raise their profile online when this sort of abuse continues to be seen as acceptable by so many, particularly large corporations that should know better?
I can't believe that any one would so unscrupulous as to actually airbrush out a watermark! And then to be so blase about the whole affair.
The entire case against them is here in this article. Surely it's a flawless case, i agree with the other commenters — sue them, you will win and it will be a landmark case.
It's a straightforward case. The evidence is all there, so the only thing that the judge would need to do is determine the damages.
Not the first time and, unfortunately likely not the last it happens. They don't seem discouraged in any way...
I remember a time a few years back in the advent of Digital Photography where so called ‘Pro’ & ‘Semi Pro’ Photographers were showing their wares on sites like flickr, in a hope of attracting publications to use their work. In most cases they were happy for them to use them for absolutely nothing just to get a ‘foot in the door’ & massage their Egos. Whilst hard working photographers who were trying to pay their mortgages & business rates were being ignored as they actually charged for their work...disgusting!! This created a culture of a free for all & put lots of businesses to the wall.
Five years later these same photographers who gave their work away for absolutely nothing, are now trying to make ends meet in a highly competitive market & now feel a need to spit their dummies out!
I’m in no way condoning this type of behaviour & it is important we protect what is legally ours, but sites like Flickr & the attitude of some photographers have created this culture.
As long chief editors of newspapers or magazines are don´t have to be afraid, to be send to jail for this kind of crime and i say crime because theft is a crime, as long this will go on. There is really a need for serious punishment for this behavior and the only thing what works is very high monetary penalty ore jail sentence for those are responsible!!!! Specially free photojournalists life close to poverty, because they love their job so much and this is exploited by those gangsters which call them self publishers ore editors!!! Shame on them!!!
We watermark our work so as to prove there has been copyright theft to see that our copyright watermark has been stringently airbrushed out, all to avoid paying the photographer for their work.
Which has been proven, rather then pay some half bit photo-shop user to commit legal infringement (who should singularly been taken to court for doing so), why not take that money and put it in the pocket of the person who has worked for it.
it is really getting beyond a joke, all that so many of us do to prevent it and still they persist, maybe I should just steal one of their industrial printers then we may be even?
And sadly in today's world without showing a regular portfolio of work on-line we would not gain work (how many of us use the internet and such sites as ways of attracting business?)
Whilst working at the DM it was commonplace to use images without any recourse to the originator, it was deemed 'up to them' to find their images being used, either in the main publication or other DM syndicated publications, i.e. Metro, Standard & abroad. Picture agencies employed people just to search through all the papers to check whether their images were used & to make sure that they got paid - everyone else would miss out on any money unless they spotted it being used. Images taken by celebrity photographers were marked on the back 'Do Not Use' to avoid the legal costs that woudl follow if the terms werent agreed first.
Funnily enough one of mine was used in the same article, I've been looking at how to go about invoicing them for the costs.
Nicholas, can you contact me at bjp.news[at]bjphoto.co.uk. We might be able to help as we're trying to contact the Daily Mail along with the other photographers about this issue.
Best,
Olivier Laurent
News and Online Editor
British Journal of Photography
Invoicing them is weak. It lets them think that this is acceptable. Its like me stealing a car and then only paying for it when caught. Invoicing them condones the behavior and there is nothing to invoice for!!! The appropriate action is to take them to court for breach of copyright and let the judge decide on the damages.
Has the Daily Mail given you permission to reproduce their page?
If not then that would be ironic wouldn't it?
Scott, our use of the Daily Mail screengrab falls under the fair use policy for news reporting. Also, we've asked both photographers if they did not object to their images being shown in that screengrab.
Best,
Olivier Laurent
News and Online Editor
British Journal of Photography
I agree that they should be sued. The Daily Mail shouldn't be allowed to continue printing after profitting from the theft of these artists works.
As a student photographer, this is a big concern for me and my class mates, we're an unprotected industry in comparison to these big news paper printers and something has to be done to stop this.
...but if as the law stands currently, once found to be infringing copyright, the newspaper then only has to pay the cost of rights purchase then would a workaround be to price images at say £1,000,000? Arguing that while publication is allowed, it is the intention that publication is to be restricted to clients with large purses. This would either force a newspaper to discuss a price beforehand and possibly be told that the photographer does not want to sell to them or accept the expensive charge if they decide to publish without prior discussion.
Just wondering..
We ask,who's running the picture dept at the Mail?
All this was unheard of during my time in Fleet Street-standards are lowered into a free-for-all,the word 'copyright' seems to have sailed out of the window.
Get a grip of yourselves,pay the guys,stop publishing what isn't yours until permission is granted and fee negotiated.
Everyone is loosing control-a few phone calls to the right people should have sorted this,instead of published and be dammed.
This isn't the way to run a newspaper of distinction and an early pioneer of publishing.Lord Northcliffe will be turning in his grave.God rest his soul.
Related Articles
BJP Daily
Most Popular Articles
Less is More: Mishka Henner's take on Robert Frank's classic
Noorderlicht Photofestival faces closure
Fujifilm releases M-mount adapter for its X-Pro 1
Apple's new iPad: Made for photographers?
Magnum photographer chooses the iPad for latest project
Canon's HDSLRs used on set of Marvel's The Avengers
Updating your subscription status 
About us
British Journal of Photography is the world’s longest running photography magazine, established in 1854, and online since 1997. A high-quality monthly printed edition is available as a subscription or from selected newsagents in the UK and around the world.
Jobs
Customer Care & Technical Support
To provide the very highest standard of Customer Care and Technical Support for all UK Hasselblad customers and potential customers as a member of our "Hasselbuddy" team.
Photographer Wanted
Imagethirst Photography is an exciting photography studio in Central London specialising in family portraiture. Our standard of excellence and absolute client confidentiality has established us as London’s leading family photography studios.
Photographer in Dubai
We are seeking a creative and confident photographer at a licentiate level with a minimum of two years studio experience.
Popular Topics
