The Guardian used my image without permission

On two occasions (that I am aware of) within a period of at least two months, the Guardian newspaper used an

image of mine that I posted on Flickr (with copyright included) without my permission (and without paying me for

it either). They used it to advertise their camera club online and also in an ad in the printed version of their

paper. I had taken part in the camera club, but the image they used was not a photo I had included in any

submissions to the camera club, it was just posted on my flickr page.

<br>

<br>

I have written to them twice asking for compensation (and an apology), but they have not yet replied. I have

searched on various forums for other similar problems, but aside from sending an invoice (which is what I plan to

do next), I'm not sure what my options are. I have only read of this happening with smaller local newspapers,

not a huge international paper like the Guardian.

<br>

<br>

So what I would like to ask is how much should I request them to compensate me for? I do mostly weddings and

portraits, so I am not sure what a newspaper like the Guardian would normally charge for something like this.

Also, if anyone has any other advice for me on this matter as to other steps that I could take, I would really

appreciate it. It seems to me that the guardian are happy to just ignore me and I think a lawyer would be too

expensive. Perhaps I could approach some other newspapers to tell them my story, so at least they get some bad

press.

<br>

<br>

Thanks in advance for your help.

<br>

(incidentally, I took this photo of myself with my son in the background...they also have no model release...not sure if that makes a difference?)<div></div>

<p>I would<br />1) double-check that membership of the camera club does not confer rights of usage on the Guardian<br />2) phone and insist on speaking to the picture editor (when you wrote, did you send your letters recorded delivery and address them to the picture editor? If not, e-mail him before you do anything else). According to this<br /><a href="http://www.epuk.org/Resources/206/newspaper-email-addresses">http://www.epuk.org/Resources/206/newspaper-email-addresses</a><br />his name is Roger Tooth. Be polite but firm, suggest there has been an oversight, but say clearly that if they do not pay, say, £50 a pop, you will be forced to go to the small claims court (I assume you are not a full-time pro and a member of the BIPP or NUJ).<br />Good luck!</p>

<p>Sara,<br>

I have looked at your flickr page and the photo is only 500 pixels large so unless you have removed the largest size from flickr recently, then it would be impossible for The Guardian to publish this image at anything more than postage stamp size.<br>

If this was the largest size on Flickr, then double check that you haven't sent them this image as part of the competition, as they are entitled, as part of their rules, to use any submitted image in their newspapers without payment or notification.<br>

Good luck</p>

Thank you both for your help. So far I have only written emails, but not directly to the picture editor, so I will try getting in touch with him.

<br>

<br>

I'm quite certain that I didn't enter this image into the competition. Also, all the images I have posted on Flickr are small files and it is only via Flickr that I have entered this competition, so I'm not sure how they printed it at the size they did. Photoshop?

<br>

<br>

Anyway, Thanks again.

<p>While this is a bad and unfortunate situation, my advice is to consider this a lesson learned and move on. How much time and money are you doing to put into this with no guaranteed return? It's not worth it to teach them or the public a lesson. Your time and money will be better spent on positive projects....-Aimee</p>

What is the lesson learned, here?

<p><blockquote><<While this is a bad and unfortunate situation, my advice is to consider this a lesson learned and move on. How much time and money are you doing to put into this with no guaranteed return? It's not worth it to teach them or the public a lesson. Your time and money will be better spent on positive projects....-Aimee>></blockquote></p><p>

The cost of following the advice given by me and others would be negligible (first check that rights have not inadvertently been granted - 5 minutes on the Internet - and then an e-mail - cost virtually zero - and a phone call - a couple of pounds maximum). For pro photographers, the question of rights grabbing is one that threatens their existence - most pros (including me) have legal expenses insurance (and free legal assistance as part of my BIPP membership package), which means you can toss cases like this to a lawyer and forget about them, but believe me, letting things go (in any cases where you have suffered material loss, and not just a technical copyright infringement) is not the way.</p>

<p>Perhaps less than 5 minutes.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/groups/guardiancameraclub/</p>

<p>Of course, you'd need to show that the image in question wasn't via the club, etc.</p>

<p>Matt - Would you go away and leave your home unlocked with all the windows and doors open? The lesson learned is when posting something on the internet, the entire world has access to it. While stealing is illegal, it happens ever day, so why not minimize your risk. I realize that different people have different opinions, but this is mine....-Aimee </p>

<p>Right now, Aimee, we're given to understand that nothing Sara did wrong contributed to this. For example, if she'd entered a higher-resolution copy of that image in a contest, and hadn't read the fine print that allowed the contest sponsors to use it however they saw fit ... lesson learned! But is the real lesson here that one of the largest publications in the world can use an image with impunity just because they can lay hands on a copy of it online?<br /><br />Nobody needs the lesson that people can save/use the stuff you show online. That's like understanding that water's wet. The implication I got from your comment was that ... when it's a big publication or advertisor that mis-uses your image, oh well, there's nothing to be done about it. Surely that's not your point. The way to minimize the risk of a major newspaper publisher infringing on your copyrights is to enforce your copyrights. Minimizing the risk isn't helped along (in constructive terms) by taking all your pictures away, and only showing them to friends in your kitchen.<br /><br />As for leaving my house unlocked ... whether or not that makes it easier for someone to steal my stuff, I'm not going to <em>catch them red-handed</em> (as Sara has done, it seems) and then say, "Well, you <em>did</em> illegally break into my house and steal things while I had a window unlocked, so I guess I should let you get away with it... even though you're right here, for all the world to see, stone cold busted."</p>

<p>Aimee,</p>

<p>There is a large difference between someone swiping an image to use on their personal website or myspace or even their podunk town diner menus and what we are being told that the Guardian has done. The Guardian is one of the largest newspapers in the world, they know full well what the laws are concerning copyright. If what we are being told by Sara is correct, the Guardian's actions are a grievous violation of those laws.</p>

<p>Now, there is still plenty of room for error here. I'm still not at all convinced that Sara didn't somehow agree to something that she didn't understand/realize which allowed the Guardian to use her image legally. And if that is the case, you are right, lesson learned. The lesson being "be careful what you agree to". But if that is not the case, then this is serious image theft and should be treated as such.</p>

<p>while anything possible, i guess, i fail to see what motive the guardian has for stealing the OP's photograph. unlike some of the more fly-by-night venues that pluck an image from here or there for their websites without remuneration to the owner of the work, i'm sure that all manner of content providers are paid -- and paid well -- by the guardian for work appearing every single day in every single edition. why would they diddle the OP out of what, to that company, will no doubt be small beans?<br>

before we convict the guardian of pilfering our correspondent's work, perhaps we'd do well to hear the other side of the the story... don't you think? there's quite likely more going on here than what we know from hearing -- wait for it! -- only one side in a quarrel. let's say we wait until at least the guardian has had an opportunity to respond to the OP's allegations before we cast them into the lake of fire... </p>

<p>To add my last 2 cents on the matter, for me it is about principals and justice. A large Newspaper like the Guardian is not above the law and the copyright of that image belongs to me. This image is a personal shot of myself with my son and I was happy to share it with others but didn't expect to have it printed anywhere, or used to publicise anything. I am currently building my career as a photographer and I think that it is sometimes assumed that a non-professional should appreciate that their image is published at all, even though others are profiting. This case may have been an oversight on the side of the guardian, but if such cases were never brought to their attention, I'm certain they would continue to take advantage of their position. Copyright law is not exclusively for professionals.</p>

<p>Also, although this saga is not yet over, it has been a real eye opener. I learnt something about copyright law at university, but it's application in the real world is really a different matter. I have read loads of different cases and already was aware of being careful on Facebook and Flickr, but I had only heard of small publications and tiny websites doing this kind of thing. But it seems that the more powerful publications/companies are taking advantage of the fact that the legal system is not up to date with the pace of digital media and the internet - see: <a href="http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1734432/court-date-set-morel-afp">http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1734432/court-date-set-morel-afp</a></p>

<p>It may seem like my fight is over a small and insignificant image, but like Mike said, even though I may have left the window open in my house, it doesn't give a thief the right to take what belongs to me.</p>

<p>(Sorry not Mike, I meant Matt!)</p>

<p>It doesn't sound like you have asked the Guardian how they got the photo and the rights to it. I would recommend doing that first, as many others here suggest. Otherwise, it's hard to support your angst.</p>

<p>William, I would love to show here the response of the Guardian, (and I will when I get one), but I have written 3 emails so far, two to rights@guardian.co.uk (2 weeks and 1 week ago) and one directly to the Camera Club via Flickr recently without any response so far. I thought a polite email would be best, but perhaps my mails went straight to the spam bin? So I will call next week to see what they have to say.</p>

<p>In the U.S. we have Small Claims Courts, which do not allow lawyers. They are a good remedy for a situation like this. You demand damages (which can be hefty for being deprived of the peaceful enjoyment of your property), go to court, and get a judgment, which can be used to lay claim to Guardian assets. But I don't know whether the land of the Magna Charta has courts like these.</p>

 

<p>RE:<br>

"I have looked at your flickr page and the photo is only 500 pixels large so unless you have removed the largest size from flickr recently, then it would be impossible for The Guardian to publish this image at anything more than postage stamp size."</p>

<p>With a common USA newspaper is only 85 line screen. Double this and a 170 ppi image is just fine. BUT one has 500 pixels; thus one can print a 500/170= about 3 inch wide image. It is has many details and has impact; a front page new photo might be double or triple for impact; ie 6 to 9 inches with those 500 pixels</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There are clubs and a zillion contests that have fine print that allows images to be used .</p>

<p>Just ask them/Guardian how they got the image;</p>

<p>if they do not have some fine print you signed then get paid for the image.</p>

<p>Maybe you will be on TV hawking Nikons with Ashton too? :)</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/groups/guardiancameraclub/</p>

<p><img id="icon_32151605@N07" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3292/buddyicons/32151605@N07.jpg?1225997526#32151605@N07" alt="view profile" width="48px" height="48px" /> <strong>The Guardian on Flickr (a group admin) says:</strong><br /><small id="blast_date" >05 May 10 -</small> <strong>We'll feature some of our favourite portfolios and photographs on guardian.co.uk and maybe in the newspaper as well. By posting your pictures in this group you agree to let this happen (though copyright remains with you at all times, and you will be credited and paid if we use your picture out of the context of the camera club). <br /> <br /> Please read the rules (below) before submitting pictures. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/guardiancameraclub/discuss/72157623867555433/">FAQs</a></strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sara; where you images just on flickr; or the flickr subgroup that is for Guardian Camera club?<br>

<br /> If you posted you images on the that subgroup it has rules; they jump out of the main webpage and even my old tired eyes saw it quickly.<br>

It is your mistake; just take it as a learning thing.</p>

<p>Hi Kelly, no I have checked over this loads of times and I definitely did not enter this photo in to the competition. It was just on the Flickr page, and it is my impression that the image was taken without someone properly checking if it was added to the camera club group. As I said before, I posted this image to share with others on Flickr. A quick link to share with friends and family and I made it open for others to comment on, but it was a personal image for me and I was aware of the rules of the camera club, which is why I didn't enter this one as I didn't want it published anywhere in the newspaper, or used to promote the camera club.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>RE: (William P.) "i fail to see what motive the guardian has for stealing the OP's photograph"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps it wasn't intentionally stolen, but clearly they thought it would be an image that would stand out to bring more interest to the camera club. But I would argue that it doesn't matter what the Guardian has to gain, but rather, what have I got to lose? I was aware of the rules of the club and didn't want this particular image of mine to be used in the way it has been used.</p>

<p>This may not be true, but I heard that by posting any image on any part of Flickr entitles the use of that image (by someone, I don't know). Maybe this is just a rumour but it was a good friend and a pro photographer who told me. Perhaps this is worth looking into generally for all of us who post on Flickr (I stopped doing it about 5 years ago myself).</p>

<p>Sara wondered about whether a model release was needed for her son, not to mention herself. While not knowing the laws in the U.K. on these matters, I'm astonished that the Guardian would publish an advertisement without model releases, irrespective of whether they think they have rights to publish because of some camera club arrangement.<br>

Also, since Nikon is clearly part of this advertisement, I would think the last thing Nikon would want to do is be a party to infringement of a photographer's copyright. Providing Sara is certain she has not inadvertently given permission to publish, I think she should pursue this matter. And again, I'm astonished the Guardian would not first nail down model releases for an advertisement.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the U.S. we have Small Claims Courts, which do not allow lawyers. They are a good remedy for a situation like this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We have small claims in the UK too. You can even make an on-line claim and let the government department sort it out: https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome</p>