Archie-fox Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) Is it the racing post? That's a good point I've searched all the papers and no signe of this picture and even searched the on line papers...last try is the racing post... Edited February 17, 2013 by archie1234 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper3 Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) Hi Pete... I could have got about £200 for this pic..i donated it as it was promoting a safety coarse I think it pays to watermark them if you don't want people to steal them... they should of asked though Edited February 17, 2013 by jasper3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 wouldnt be a local guy whos been selling horse meat and saying its beef?? if you have put the photo on a public website and not put in the small print that the images remain your property youve got zero chance of a getting anything..you have made it public yourself... That isn't true. Just because it is 'public' doesn't mean you have given away your rights to it. If that were the case then you could quite freely photocopy a book or copy a CD and give it away to anyone you liked. I doubt that the fee offered will be very great though as papers don't usually pay a lot of money for pictures. If it has resulted in a loss to the copyright owner though then I think the fee would be higher. J. That's not true as I understand it. Anything published is you property unless you publish a disclaimer. I think that copyright laws are valid for 50 years. If they have admitted using your image, and to be honest that is not necessary as you could prove it anyway, but it is helpful, I would think that you could get a decent payment for use of the image especially if their use of this image in this way has caused you severe embarrassment and distress. I think it's something like 75 years (might be 50) from the death of the person who creatd it. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 I can undrstand what FalconFN and Sandpiper are saying but the point of this is that they used the photo without permission blatantly ignoring copyright laws and that is what they are offering payment for as well as the photo itself. They have as good as acknowledged that they are well and trully in the wrong for publishing copyright protected photos and I believe are squirming a bit now after some very carefully chosen words! They aren't though. All you can do is to get them to pay whatever fee they would have had to pay for the work had they got it legally plus, maybe, a bit for your time in chasing them. If their use of it has cost you in loss of trade or something then that is a different matter. If you were to pursue it legally no court is going to award you more on the grounds that they broke the law because that is for the state to enforce through a criminal action not the individual. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 Thanks for that John. I have taken legal advice from a firm of solicitors who specialise in copyright issues. They have instructed me to request a 4 figure payment and if that figure is not accepted and paid by the newspaper they will be taking legal action with the newspaper in question. I have taken and acted on this advice and now await a reply from the photo editor of the newspaper concerned. Lawers are exceptionally good at spending other peoples money. It doesn't really seem worth to hang out for a small amount of money like that on threat of legal action because if it goes that far you will most likely be absolutely buried in costs. Suing people is rarely worth it unless there is a lot of money involved. J. If they have to step in and deal with the matter their fees will be added on to the claim from the newspaper. As for saying which newspaper it is - Well, you are all a pretty intelligent and clever bunch so i will let you try to work that one out! I will reveal all as and when the matter is resolved! p.s. It is no good just trying to list all of the different Daily papers as I will not say either yes of no. Which you will only get back if your win and even then its not guaranteed. If the court things that you should have accepted the offer in the first place then they may well find in your favor but not award costs. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 I wonder whether you could put a statement on the website to the effect of; "All images on this site are copyright of XXXX. The copyright owner licenses the use of the images for (insert what you allow them to be used for, pruint, internet, TV, etc) for a fee of £1,000,000 per publication. Use of the image constitutes acceptance of these terms" Don't know if copyright law allows you to do that though. It wouldn't in some circumstances as there are 'fair use' provisions whereby you can use images for the purpose of journalism and suchlike under certain circumstances. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 I wonder whether you could put a statement on the website to the effect of; "All images on this site are copyright of XXXX. The copyright owner licenses the use of the images for (insert what you allow them to be used for, pruint, internet, TV, etc) for a fee of £1,000,000 per publication. Use of the image constitutes acceptance of these terms" Don't know if copyright law allows you to do that though. It wouldn't in some circumstances as there are 'fair use' provisions whereby you can use images for the purpose of journalism and suchlike under certain circumstances. J. You can't enforce a unilateral contract like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 You can't enforce a unilateral contract like that. Why? It's no different to a parking contract or a contract to pay a reward for a lost dog, surely? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 Why? It's no different to a parking contract or a contract to pay a reward for a lost dog, surely? J. Parking contracts are constantly torn up though. As well as not having ridiculous clauses whereby if you stay 30seconds too long it will cost £1,000,0000,000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 Why? It's no different to a parking contract or a contract to pay a reward for a lost dog, surely? J. Because the example you give is unreasonable in its extent. If the figure used was £50 and it was nice and clear you might be in with a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) Because the example you give is unreasonable in its extent. If the figure used was £50 and it was nice and clear you might be in with a chance. Ok, I asumed that you were referring to the 'unilateral' part of it. Even then though, surely it would be difficult to argue that whatever you stipulated was unreasonable because you always have the option of not accepting the contract. You might have to put the consideration in big red print but I not convinced that the amount, of its self, is fatal to the contract. Courts do not usually trouble them selves with the reasonableness of the terms, I don't think. It isn't the place of the court to get people out of a bad bargain. J. Edited February 17, 2013 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST3V3 Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 got this on bike number plate can I enforce it if needed No Photogaphic or Digital Reproduction © Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 Ok, I asumed that you were referring to the 'unilateral' part of it. Even then though, surely it would be difficult to argue that whatever you stipulated was unreasonable because you always have the option of not accepting the contract. You might have to put the consideration in big red print but I not convinced that the amount, of its self, is fatal to the contract. Courts do not usually trouble them selves with the reasonableness of the terms, I don't think. It isn't the place of the court to get people out of a bad bargain. J. I can be sure that if you tried to enforce in court, on those terms it would be struck out. Unilateral contracts are difficult at best and those with very onerous conditions are simply ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 Any responses to this post by the Member known as JonathanL will incur a fee of £1000,000 to be paid to the member know as Diceman in cash within 12 hours of posting. Worth a try? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) I can be sure that if you tried to enforce in court, on those terms it would be struck out. Unilateral contracts are difficult at best and those with very onerous conditions are simply ignored. What is your evidence of that though? If I say that I want one million pounds from you so that you can publish a photograph that I own and the term is that publication of same is acceptance of that agreement then where is the legal problem? As long as you know that you have a pay me one million pounds upon publication of the image then surely a vaild contract exists? If you don't want to pay me one million pounds then don't publish the picture, if you want to publish the picture then you know that you have to pay me one million pounds. I fail to see the problem. J. Edited February 17, 2013 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 What is your evidence of that though? If I say that I want one million pounds from you so that you can publish a photograph that I own and the term is that publication of same is acceptance of that agreement then where is the legal problem? As long as you know that you have a pay me one million pounds upon publication of the image then surely a vaild contract exists? If you don't want to pay me one million pounds then don't publish the picture, if you want to publish the picture then you know that you have to pay me one million pounds. I fail to see the problem. J. Get a copy of Chitty on Contracts. Do some reading and all will be clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.