http://caughtthelight.com/

The audacity of some people is beyond belief. It's hard as a picture editor to stave off your editorial team if you don't have permission to use the image, but that is beside the point. If you don't have permission, you just don't do it. This should be a dismissable offence in my opinion.

Respect

The respect that Picture Desks have for contributing photographers is simply awesome isn't it!

Has our industry sunk this low that instead of apologising fopr a mistake, editors have to make up excuses to justify behaving badly?

It would be some compensation if the rates they offer were reasonable, but in every single case Fleet Street papers are paying less now than they were fifteen years ago.

No wonder the newspaper industry is in such dire straits...

Value

"No overwhelming artistic value."

Suggesting that your photo doesn't have much value has become a familiar tactic over the past 15 years.

The message is: you only deserve a low fee or maybe no fee at all.

In reality, if they publish a photo then obviously it does have value. It met their needs. They chose your picture rather than some other.

I hope as part of the copyright review the government will introduce some simple, quick and inexpensive system whereby a photographer can get payment for unauthorised (and cheeky) use like this. It would make these people think twice.

The system needs to be rebalanced in favour of photographers.

We could always blacklist the Telegraph

They don't seem to realise the damage they do to their own reputations every time they demonstrate contempt for photographers in this way. It doesn't seem to occur to them that they might be blacklisted by photographers. They never find out when they are, because they simply don't receive the content.

They should have apologised profusely, and coughed up a few thousand pounds to make the photographer happy.

The Telegraph and/or its employees have also committed a criminal offence punishable by up to two years in prison (CDPA S.107(2A)), we need one or two criminal prosecutions to make them take their legal obligations a little more seriously. They don't seem to have learnt anything at all from the Leveson enquiry.

p.s.

Since when has eight times £25 equalled £400?

Mr Fearn has a twitter account

Mr Fearn is a proper charlie. This is known.

He has a twitter too donchaknow:

https://twitter.com/pixed

It's everywhere....

This issue is everywhere. You'llbe interested to read about my latest copyright infringement issue:

http://blog.neillwatson.com/opinions/sir-stirling-moss-the-blonde-and-the-mystery-of-the-stolen-image/

Some perspective please?

To suggest that the law should favour photographers, is rediculous! The law should protect both parties equally. Picture editors should make every effort to clear, credit and pay for the usage of an image and photographers should be more willing to accept industry standard usage fees and the changing nature of the industry. Many picture editors have photographic backgrounds and are sympathetic to the fact that photographers earn a living from their work and make every effort to clear an image, however some (not all) photogarphers quite often hold picture editors/newspapers to ransom if their image has been used, insisting on ludicrous usage fees under a threat of legal action, becoming too self righteous by far. Online image usage is growing and more images will be used on the web, meaning more possible revenue for photographers, but the fees should be reasonable. Editorial teams should also be more respectful of the fact that they do need to pay for images, credit the photographer and clear the usage.

Don't defend the indefensible

Emily, it's not a question of what the law should or shouldn't be - it's a question of what it IS. The Telegraph may wish that the law said something different, but it doesn't, and they really ought to understand it.

Many newspapers seem to take the approach that the law doesn't apply to them. Whenever they find it inconvenient 'phone hacking is fine because everyone does it' ' we can take other people's property, use it and pay them a pittance later in the unlikely event that they find out about it - everyone does it' - and so on. But sooner or later, they will realise that, actually, even they are not completely above the law.

And further...

The Telegraph statement is inherently contradictory. The say that they clear copyright consent ahead of time 99% of the time: "Having been unable to secure clearance in advance (as we do in 99% of cases)"

So what was so special about this photo that put it in the 1% of cases, that made it imperative to publish it with or without consent, what was so great about it that made it justify them committing a criminal offence? Surely it must be a very valuable photo. But they say they only do it "if a picture has no overwhelming artistic value"

Very odd.

Contact details

I am a web journo on one of the big uk titles. While I do not condone copyright theft I always find it incredibly frustrating when people leave no contact details on their blog/website - other than perhaps a generic (never read) email address. We are happy to pay the going rate for an image but the rights owner makes it next to impossible to get in contact. Non journos have no idea of deadlines and a reply a week later is no good. More often than not the story either ends up as a library picture or nothing at all. I can see the Telegraph's pic ed's dilemma.
If only the photographers would return calls as quick as they do when they smell litigation

But

The picture editor always has the option of not using that image. If it's not a valuable image, worth £25 or so for that kind of use, then that is no skin off their nose at all.

If all else fails, putting the image into Google image search will usually throw up the photographer.

If photographers don't respond quickly to an enquiry to use the image, then that's probably because the paper is not going to offer enough money. Who is going to jump and respond quickly at the offer to be ripped off for £25. Do you respond quickly to your spam?

They can't claim that £25 is a 'market rate' and then complain when people don't feel obliged to jump when they snap their fingers.

Banier Judgement

TheTelegraph clearly hasn't heard of the Banier Judgement:

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

'...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."'

Great!

So as I understand the argument of the journalist types, as long as somebody plays music or releases it on the internet, it is okay to copy it because it has been in the public domain. Fantastic, that means Megaupload can open with impunity then? OR this was Gross Misconduct on the part of the Deputy Editor and they should be dismissed immediately and FACT should pursue this..............

Interesting

The Banier judgement points to damages of in the order of £55,000. My feeling was that the photographer claiming £1000 in this case is far too little.

The Telegraph seems to have admitted that they will only do this in around 1% of cases, and where no other photo, for example from an image library, will do. This seems to point to the image use being worth perhaps tens of thousands of pounds. The alternative would be that the Telegraph are deliberately floutng the law and committing a criminal offence where they don't need to.

The photographer is really to be applauded for his stand in the face of unprincipled bullying, but I would think the photographer should get legal advice and rethink the amount of damages he's claiming. Letting the Telegraph get away with just £1000 payment seems far too little.

The photographer should also be claiming the other various penalties he's entitled to, not just for flagrancy.

calm down dear...

400 quid for an online photo seems pretty good to me - the photographer should take it and stop whining...

Cheap online use

I regularly submit news photos to the Telegraph but they are never used. A couple of years ago I noticed that they had started using some of my images in online galleries, but only images that I had made available through an agency. Eventually I found out why -- the agency had allowed the Telegraph to use the images for £7 each. Not what I would call a fair rate, considering that the £3.50 I received wouldn't even cover the fuel used to go and take the pictures.

It's Become A Game

It's become a game of Publish Now, Pay Later, but only if you they caught. While I have not seen the image in question, I wonder what the determining factor was in the urgency of its use. Surely it was not life altering or I would have seen the picture in my news feeds.

An analogy

I go to the sweet shop, and see a chocolate bar I would like. The shopkeeper is nowhere to be seen, so I decide that its his fault for not being easily available, so I will just take the bar and walk off.
If he comes after me, I will say sorry, and give him twice the price of the bar, and tell him he has no right to call the police as I've now paid him more than its worth.

Need Advice Plz

Before while, Awell known photographer working in well known US Magazine .

take some pix from me to publish it in his magazine and we agree between me and him ,he will copyright the pix in my name
, i found while I'm surfing the net , he copyright the pix to his name .
the pix i take not digital he scan the negative and i lost the original negative , but his photography style totally different about my style ( he is always use cross processing ) . can i do something about copyright ....