PhotoPower wrote:
Forget about it. Move on. It was on FaceBook. Invoice them with a tear sheet and a copy of the original, but slight chance they will pay. Who suggested talking to a lawyer ... oh yeah that'll work!! Clip it and put in in your portfolio and call it a published image!!

...... + 1.

MC Photo wrote:
Registration doesn't mean diddly as far as whether you can go after them or not.

minus 1,000

registration gives you powerful legal tools that radically change the balance of power  in the photographer's favor.

the very first question my attorney asks me is "did you register it?" because registration changes everything.

read ed greenberg's book and educate yourself . . .

MC Photo wrote:
Registration doesn't mean diddly as far as whether you can go after them or not.

So you're using WIKIPEDIA as a source to make a point in a discussion where people who have actual experience in this topic are stating the opposite? Dude, seriously? If you don't have experience in this matter, shut your mouth, remove your fingers from the keyboard, and then go on to a Honey Boo Boo thread or something. Back to the short bus with you!

sultanphotography wrote:
so I called and the editor called me back apologizing. he said he found it on some twitter account and not from my page. I told him, so obviously it was part of a shoot, obviously it belonged to someone, you didnt do your due diligence and just took it and printed a million times in your paper. He said it was no excuse for the mistake. He initially offered me $100. I was like dude, i sell senior pictures for a $1000, and those arent pictures that got stolen and used as their own with NO credit to the owner.

I explained that this picture was going to be part of a calendar that we are selling and the cat is out of the bag. He offered to reprint it with full credit and give me full advertising on that sports page with multiple pictures of that shoot. hmmm... he sure is conceeding way too quick huh?

Just so we're clear here. You started this thread looking for advice on what to do. There are several of us in here who have personally dealt with this issue who have given you advice on what to do (contact an attorney) and I even went so far as to refer you to one. So what do you do? You call the paper?

David Parsons wrote:
They likely do the same thing on a regular basis.  There aren't much ethics left in the dying industry.

Wrong!

MKPhoto wrote:
From Facebook's TOS:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

I'm not sure that Facebook enters into this in any way. They were hosting the image (the only purpose of their TOS). So, unless they negotiated the use of the image with the Chicago Sun Times, it would be a copyright violation just as if the newspaper had taken it from the OP's website.

The most egregious and pursuable element of this is the newspaper's willful removal of the OP's copyright info prior to publishing. THAT is a huge deal. And whether the image was officially registered wouldn't affect that. Yes, not registering might affect the amount of damages but it has no bearing on whether an infringement took place, nor does it change the willful violation.

I'm shocked that anyone in this thread said "let it go...it's not worth it." This isn't some individual model using an image without permission, or even a low-budget website culling an image for some "best of..." blog.

sultanphotography wrote:
so I called and the editor called me back apologizing.

I didn't see this when I posted. Very disappointing. Never contact the offender...that's what attorney's are for.

J E W E T T wrote:
Yep, that's so they can actually host, post, and display your image.

It certainly does not grant the newspaper the right to publish it.

But can't they (Facebook), at least in principle, cut a deal with newspaper(s) as their licence is transferable and sub-licenceable?

MKPhoto wrote:
From Facebook's TOS:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

^^ This ^^
is why I don't have a Facebook account and have never agreed to their Terms of Service.

Recently the photo editor of a small magazine that's planning a three-page spread of my photos asked me (three times!) whether any of the photos had *ever* been uploaded to Facebook - before he would even look at the photos. The answer was no.

Seems FB either sued or threatened to sue the publisher of the small magazine for printing photos (which were submitted to the magazine by the photographer, who owned the rights) that had been on Facebook.

To avoid financial ruin, the published agreed to never publish anything that had been on FB again.

The question is not just when FB will go after someone who can afford to sue them, but whether the owner or publisher will decide that taking FB to federal court is the best use of his/her money.

Some of my photos have been uploaded to FB by models, who don't own the rights. I'm assuming that since I'm the owner of the rights to the photos, FB wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they used my photos, interfered with publication of them, etc.

I hope I'm right.

sultanphotography wrote:
so I called and the editor called me back apologizing. he said he found it on some twitter account and not from my page. I told him, so obviously it was part of a shoot, obviously it belonged to someone, you didnt do your due diligence and just took it and printed a million times in your paper. He said it was no excuse for the mistake. He initially offered me $100. I was like dude, i sell senior pictures for a $1000, and those arent pictures that got stolen and used as their own with NO credit to the owner.

I explained that this picture was going to be part of a calendar that we are selling and the cat is out of the bag. He offered to reprint it with full credit and give me full advertising on that sports page with multiple pictures of that shoot. hmmm... he sure is conceeding way too quick huh?

I work at a television station owned by a major media company. We really try to avoid having to use a photo from facebook. But when we do, we ask permission and our standard payout is $2,000. If they wont go for that we move on without the photo.

Camerosity wrote:
^^ This ^^
is why I don't have a Facebook account and have never agreed to their Terms of Service.

Recently the photo editor of a small magazine that's planning a three-page spread of my photos asked me (three times!) whether any of the photos had *ever* been uploaded to Facebook - before he would even look at the photos. The answer was no.

Seems FB either sued or threatened to sue the publisher of the small magazine for printing photos (which were submitted to the magazine by the photographer, who owned the rights) that had been on Facebook.

To avoid financial ruin, the published agreed to never publish anything that had been on FB again.

The question is not just when FB will go after someone who can afford to sue them, but whether the owner or publisher will decide that taking FB to federal court is the best use of his/her money.

Some of my photos have been uploaded to FB by models, who don't own the rights. I'm assuming that since I'm the owner of the rights to the photos, FB wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they used my photos, interfered with publication of them, etc.

I hope I'm right.

All of the above does not have any truth to it at all. None of this ever happened or is likely to ever happen.

My guess is that Camerosity or his friend met the facebook in

The Twilight Zone.

Camerosity wrote:
^^ This ^^
is why I don't have a Facebook account and have never agreed to their Terms of Service.

Recently the photo editor of a small magazine that's planning a three-page spread of my photos asked me (three times!) whether any of the photos had *ever* been uploaded to Facebook - before he would even look at the photos. The answer was no.

Seems FB either sued or threatened to sue the publisher of the small magazine for printing photos (which were submitted to the magazine by the photographer, who owned the rights) that had been on Facebook.

To avoid financial ruin, the published agreed to never publish anything that had been on FB again.

The question is not just when FB will go after someone who can afford to sue them, but whether the owner or publisher will decide that taking FB to federal court is the best use of his/her money.

Some of my photos have been uploaded to FB by models, who don't own the rights. I'm assuming that since I'm the owner of the rights to the photos, FB wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they used my photos, interfered with publication of them, etc.

I hope I'm right.

hoping won't solve the op's situation.

Dan K Photography wrote:
All of the above does not have any truth to it at all. None of this ever happened or is likely to ever happen.

My guess is that Camerosity or his friend met the facebook in

The Twilight Zone.

Thank you for your erroneous and uninformed opinion. You are most certainly entitled to it.

You have a stellar portfolio, and I have admired your work. But unless the photo editor lied to me, in this case you are simply wrong.

William Cox wrote:
I work at a television station owned by a major media company. We really try to avoid having to use a photo from facebook. But when we do, we ask permission and our standard payout is $2,000. If they wont go for that we move on without the photo.

In this town newspapers publish pictures taken from FB, quite often in the context of crime (murder...)...The only images available of the victim are on FB. How does this stand?

OTH. If a newspaper swipes an image from FB, they break FBs licence, but also original photographer's copyright. Who can sue, whose claim comes first etc...?

sultanphotography wrote:
Chicago Sun Times

first you contact the photo editor of the times and ask him where to send the invoice, and mention the invoice will be triple your normal rate because they cropped off your copyright

usually they just pay

Camerosity wrote:

Thank you for your erroneous and uninformed opinion. You are most certainly entitled to it.

You have a stellar portfolio, and I have admired your work. But unless the photo editor lied to me, in this case you are simply wrong.

I am sorry but there is no way that this happened the way you wrote it. If Facebook ever did this it would be huge news in this community. Facebook only wants the rights it needs to show the images in the way you want them to. MM, flckr, google+ etc all have similar statements.

My guess is he did indeed lie to you or you misunderstood him. Most editors do not want to publish works that was put up on the internet.

MKPhoto wrote:
From Facebook's TOS:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

you forgot the top line

"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition: "

Shot By Adam wrote:
Just so we're clear here. You started this thread looking for advice on what to do. There are several of us in here who have personally dealt with this issue who have given you advice on what to do (contact an attorney) and I even went so far as to refer you to one. So what do you do? You call the paper?

That's a bit harsh.  At least he is quoting a number in the thousands instead of  playing for some peanuts or bogus "errata" story credit.   And a half page ad in the sports page is a pretty valuable commodity which could be resold for cash.  I say "Kudos" for not rolling over and playing doormat as some have suggested.  Good for building character, you know.

Dan K Photography wrote:
you forgot the top line

"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition: "

This is true. However, once I agreed to FB's TOS, any of my photos that have been posted on FB by models (there are nearly 100 that I know of - probably more by now) would be subject to the TOS, regardless of the privacy and application settings on my account.

Yes, the vast majoritity of magazines will not publish photos that have been available to the public anywhere on the Internet. However, the magazine in question does not pay for photos and does occasionally publish photos that have been used in online portfolios. Their only real concern was whether they had been posted on Facebook.

Once they decided to publish the photos, however, they did ask that the model and I refrain from using them in our portfolios before publication but said they could be placed in a password-protected folder on MM, which is where they are.

howard r wrote:
you need to register your copyright to have bargaining power

you should contact a copyright lawyer asap before you do anything

you should buy (and study) ed greenberg's legal guide book for photographers on amazon before their is a next time

+1, well, I would not wait to get that registered copyright into action, and for that matter, all the images in your calendar. Pretty simple to laod a DVD with thumbnails and register "My 2012 Collection" in one batch.

Whenever you took the shot, you might have been admitted with restrictions. Time to double check on the conditions you had at the shoot.

sultanphotography wrote:
so I called and the editor called me back apologizing. he said he found it on some twitter account and not from my page. I told him, so obviously it was part of a shoot, obviously it belonged to someone, you didnt do your due diligence and just took it and printed a million times in your paper. He said it was no excuse for the mistake. He initially offered me $100. I was like dude, i sell senior pictures for a $1000, and those arent pictures that got stolen and used as their own with NO credit to the owner.

I explained that this picture was going to be part of a calendar that we are selling and the cat is out of the bag. He offered to reprint it with full credit and give me full advertising on that sports page with multiple pictures of that shoot. hmmm... he sure is conceeding way too quick huh?

It is not a time to be greedy asking, "How much more can I get?" It is a time to ask, "What is that image really worth to me?" If you truly think it will harm future sales, factor that into your settling price. Some level of punitive damages is warranted to keep them from doing this to someone else. If they are offering advertising space, you might be able to increase sales well beyond any expectations you dreamt of getting.

photo212grapher wrote:
+1, well, I would not wait to get that registered copyright into action, and for that matter, all the images in your calendar. Pretty simple to laod a DVD with thumbnails and register "My 2012 Collection" in one batch.

Whenever you took the shot, you might have been admitted with restrictions. Time to double check on the conditions you had at the shoot.

Periodically registering copyrights with the Copyright Office is excellent advice, Eric. At $35 for as many photos as you can cram on a CD or DVD, it's cheap insurance.

When I first registered photos, the Copyright Office fee was $2 for as many 35mm contacts (35) as you could get on an 8x10 - or as many as you could get on two 8x10's laminated back-to-back. Even if you bound multiple contact sheets together as a book, on a per-photo basis, it's still much cheaper now - even if you don't adjust for inflation.

However, I have been advised by a copyright attorney to avoid using the word "collection," as that could conceivably be construed at some point to mean that the "collection" is registered - but not the individual photos.

When I register photos, I title the submission Photographs: x date to y date.

Dan K Photography wrote:
All of the above does not have any truth to it at all. None of this ever happened or is likely to ever happen.

My guess is that Camerosity or his friend met the facebook in

The Twilight Zone.

the only reason it hasn't happened is because its in Facebooks best interest not to piss off their customers.

If tomorrow the next big comes along and Facebook is no longer the place to be it won't take long before it goes belly up and finds itself in the hands of administrators. They will only be looking for scrap value, not interested keeping you happy. At that point they may well say, "technically we have a lot of rights to these images... we can even sub license them according to the current terms - we could make a few bucks out of that" or alternatively they might say.. "its nice all our toc have that caveat "Subject to change" attached, lets tweak it a little in our favour..."

sultanphotography wrote:
so I called and the editor called me back apologizing. he said he found it on some twitter account and not from my page. I told him, so obviously it was part of a shoot, obviously it belonged to someone, you didnt do your due diligence and just took it and printed a million times in your paper. He said it was no excuse for the mistake. He initially offered me $100. I was like dude, i sell senior pictures for a $1000, and those arent pictures that got stolen and used as their own with NO credit to the owner.

I explained that this picture was going to be part of a calendar that we are selling and the cat is out of the bag. He offered to reprint it with full credit and give me full advertising on that sports page with multiple pictures of that shoot. hmmm... he sure is conceeding way too quick huh?

I think he is doing the right thing and that it might be very wise to gracefully accept his apology and ask him to consider using more of your photos on a regular basis with credit!!

Jen

howard r wrote:

minus 1,000

registration gives you powerful legal tools that radically change the balance of power  in the photographer's favor.

the very first question my attorney asks me is "did you register it?" because registration changes everything.

read ed greenberg's book and educate yourself . . .

Lack of registration doesn't prevent you from going after them.

Shot By Adam wrote:

So you're using WIKIPEDIA as a source to make a point in a discussion where people who have actual experience in this topic are stating the opposite? Dude, seriously? If you don't have experience in this matter, shut your mouth, remove your fingers from the keyboard, and then go on to a Honey Boo Boo thread or something. Back to the short bus with you!

No. I'm using Wikipedia for a definition of statutory damages.

Lack of registration doesn't prevent you from going after someone for an unlicensed image. Registration has no meaning as far as whether you can go after them or not.

MC Grain wrote:
Lack of registration doesn't prevent you from going after someone for an unlicensed image. Registration has no meaning as far as whether you can go after them or not.

Of course not, but it certainly defines the amount of monetary damages you can collect when you do.

If someone breaks into my house, steals my television, my computer, and my car, I'm not going to have the police just file charges for him trespassing on my front lawn, I'm going to have the police pursue burglary and grand larceny charges.

Harold Rose wrote:

When you tell me that Facebook is in the picture,  that is not all that bad.  There are so many questions that can't be answered with the  very small info that you have posted....  It is difficult to claim ownership  after the fact that the photo was shared  from the facebook  location..  "shared,  and admission of who owned it"    In spite of all   Face book does a good job of protecting your copy right..   BUT  I doubt if you have it copyrighted.

you have been a photographer since before most of us were born and you dont know that you have copyright in the image the moment you take it?

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
you have been a photographer since before most of us were born and you dont know that you have copyright in the image the moment you take it?

harold is referring to registering the image with the government.

Shot By Adam wrote:

Of course not, but it certainly defines the amount of monetary damages you can collect when you do.

If someone breaks into my house, steals my television, my computer, and my car, I'm not going to have the police just file charges for him trespassing on my front lawn, I'm going to have the police pursue burglary and grand larceny charges.

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? Is that supposed to be analogy? If you're going to make an analogy to damages awarded by a judge, the logical analogy would be punishment given by a judge.

If you think you're going to get $150k for an unlicensed use in a newspaper, because you've registered the image you're mistaken.

sultanphotography wrote:
I dont have the time to chase a wild goose chase. all your advice was amazing and going forward i am going to copyright my images as suggested. I think a half page layout of my pictures in the top Chicago Newspaper in the Sports section with proper credit could be good.

Make sure that you get the agreement in writing with as much detail as possible. In the few situations I've been in like this, I've found that the people who try to avoid paying end up making serious efforts to not honor the follow up promises that they make.

If I were you, I'd call the advertising department and ask how much it costs to run a half page ad and get and idea of the value of what they're offering. Half of that might be quite a bit more than their standard rate that they'd have paid you if they'd gone about it properly.

Photography by Riddell wrote:
I really don't understand this (presumably American) attitude of just reaching for a lawyer straight away.Why should a lawyer make something out of this situation at this stage? It compounds your problems, makes more work for yourself

This has happened to me many times and just like the OP has done I've called the editor always got an apology and they've then always paid me a good fee. Plus perhaps given me some free advertising space or whatever as well.

I have cases where they liked my work enough to use it in the first place and its led onto further commissioned work for the title.

You'd only need to get legal people involved at a later stage if that publisher refused to pay or acknowlege you or something.

+1

Honey Vs Vinegar.

Reggie Dennis wrote:
Contact a lawyer, tell them and show them what happened. Then let them contact the newspaper on your behalf. You might get a quicker response from them that way.

This.  My whole family worked for the Sun Times at one point, they wont listen to anyone unless its a lawyer threatening compensation/a lawsuit.  Make sure s/he's good!!

Photography by Riddell wrote:
I really don't understand this (presumably American) attitude of just reaching for a lawyer straight away.Why should a lawyer make something out of this situation at this stage? It compounds your problems, makes more work for yourself

This has happened to me many times and just like the OP has done I've called the editor always got an apology and they've then always paid me a good fee. Plus perhaps given me some free advertising space or whatever as well.

I have cases where they liked my work enough to use it in the first place and its led onto further commissioned work for the title.

You'd only need to get legal people involved at a later stage if that publisher refused to pay or acknowlege you or something.

Thats the problem though. Its not an American attitude or whatever, its our country, we know it sucks. the UK is a lot more easy going and real with people. America isnt, we are almost forced to get lawyers for everything because no one will listen to you or take you seriously otherwise. At least in the majority of problems like this.