Photo published in newspaper without my knowledge

[j_g21]

<p>I was wondering what the procedure on my part would be if I just picked up the Sunday newspaper for my city, and found that a wedding photo that I took was used for a teaser for the Life section on the front page! It was a story about wedding couples, and they used one from a recent wedding I did. The couple does not have their photos yet, and it is obvious that the image was pulled from my Facebook page, and the top part with my logo was cropped off. There is no credit for me at all anywhere. </p>

<p>I know they always publish engagement announcements without crediting photographers, but I see this as a different situation, since it was the image used for the actual story. I also don't want to create any controversy between me and the couple, seeing as they haven't even put in their order yet with the print credit they received... <br>

I emailed the writer of the article, and just told her that I noticed the photo and was flattered, but asked what their policy was as far as crediting the photographer. </p>

<p>Thanks for your input!</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>From the conditional wording you used in your first couple of sentences, ie, "...if I just ... and if I found that ...", it's not clear if this incident is hypothetical or really happened. Your later sentences make it sound like it really happened, so I'll assume that's the case.</p>

<p>Presuming you had a copyright notice embedded in your image, or stated on your Facebook page, go to a couple of stock photography sites, price similar images in the same size, with similar, one-time usage. Send the paper an invoice for that amount, stating that the price was determined from going rates for comparable images on the following stock agencies. You'll probably get no response. After waiting for the "pay by" date to pass, get a lawyer to send their legal staff a letter. Offer the lawyer a large fraction of what he recovers so you don't have to pay anything out of pocket to him. The couple shouldn't concern themselves about this. It's between you and the paper. They clearly infringed your copyright, especially if you had notices clearly posted.</p>

<p>Tom M.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>told her that I noticed the photo and was flattered</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Flattery is a reason why many people allow their images to be used by others for free. Many of the users know this. Telling people associated with the unauthorized use of your image that you are flattered may not be the best opening posture when you seek to be compensated financially for such unauthorized use.</p>

<p>As to a helpful posture to adopt, it may depend on whether the publication can be a source of income for you in the future. Is that realistic here?</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>JG:<br /><br />Have you asked the bride/groom if they downloaded the photo from your Facebook page and submitted it to the newspaper? The vast majority of non-photographers have a pretty poor grasp on how copyright works and what's ok and what isn't - especially with photos depicting themselves.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>I certainly would not have sent them an e-mail saying I was flattered. </p>

<p>I would have sent them an invoice for $300.00 - since the image was not submitted by you nor did you give them rights to publish it. As for the $300.00 that's a complete PUA (pulled out of the air) number - but you get the idea. Along with a request / demand to be credited for the photo in a correction column in the next day's paper.</p>

<p>My guess is that some young intern page editor / copy person needed a wedding photo and they either knew about you or did a google search on weddings in your city and they happened to like the image that they found. I'm guessing that an experienced person would have just gone out to the paper's files and found a wedding image. I think one of the papers around the midwest still uses a wedding photo from 1980 in their lifestyle section. But I can see why they would make that mistake - since everything on the web is "public domain", right? (I know it's not ...just saying what they were thinking!)</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>

[jwallphoto]

<p>The writer may have had nothing to do with the photo being used, unless he/she is also the section editor. I would contact the appropriate editor and ask for an explanation. In my opinion, you're never going to get enough $$ to interest a lawyer since their hourly rate is generally about five-times what a newspaper pays for a photo.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>I'm not sure there is any legitimate excuse for a newspaper not being completely in command of the copyright issues on using a photograph.</p>

<p>Send them a bill asking to be paid the going rate for use of your picture. Cropping off a watermark (and especially if your watermark was a copyright notice) should have made it plenty obvious they weren't getting the picture from the photographer and due diligence/experience should suggest that most people outside of either the news or photographic professions don't know who owns copyright, so a signed disclaimer might be a pretty weak excuse.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>The use of the photo was <strong>editorial</strong> (not much chance you will get paid....) and had the photo been used by a wedding studio in a advertisement, you would have a much, much better chance at getting some greenbacks over the use of your image.</p>

<p>American newspapers - in stories - are editoral users of material.</p>

<p>The newspaper may print a "<strong>Oops</strong>." And give you credit for the photo.</p>

<p> </p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>"The use of the photo was <strong>editorial</strong> (not much chance you will get paid....)" - Actually this statement is NOT accurate. Editorial (or not) use has to do with model release requirements and NOT with payment, certainly not to the photographer!</p>

<p>ANY image a newspaper uses must be paid for. ANY. Exempted are only public domain images, images their own photographers may have taken or images they were given for free. Everything else is bought and paid for - if that were not the case, thousands of photographers would by now be falling down in the middle of the street dying of starvation!</p>

<p>Tomm has it right. Proceed as if this was a normal business transaction and treat it as such. Also, don't forget the couple may also want to proceed legally against the newspaper for unauthorised use of their image.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>The hassles and expense involved with an infringement action compared to what can actually be recovered can make this unworthy of pursuing legally. Making a reasonable claim to the publisher may produce something. If there is benefit to forming relations with the organization or certain people within it, this can be a way to be able 'get in the door' if done in a friendly way.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p><em>". I also don't want to create any controversy between me and the couple" </em> - but you already could be in hot water.<br>

Saying that:<br>

"<em>The couple does not have their photos yet,"</em><br>

and<br>

"<em>was used for a teaser</em>".<br>

Just pray that this incident will not make the couple laughing stock of the city.<br>

In your city you provide service to community, and should think first about your clients, then next about yourself.</p>

<p> </p>

[Jerry_]

<p>"ANY image a newspaper uses must be paid for."</p>

<p>Do you have a legal (contract?) document that states this fact?</p>

<p>Our local newspaper <strong>allows a photo</strong> in the Obit section (<em>often <strong>a studio image</strong> of the deceased in a very small reproduction</em> size) that the family pays the newspaper to print. I doubt any studio has ever gone after the newspaper for payment of re-producing the studio's image in <strong>a paid "editorial" obit article</strong>.</p>

<p> </p>

[radiotyson]

<p>As a photographer who regularly submits photos to the local newspaper, I wouldn't worry too much. Chances are you aren't going to get any cash out them. Also, if you make a big fuss out of it the Paper will do the minimum to appease you, and then Never, Ever, use your photos again. I would contact the paper and ask for credit in a correction and assure them that if they ever want another photo to contact you directly. A photo with your name in the cutline is far more valuable (and costs you nothing) than the hundred's of dollars you could spend on advertising.<br>

After building a good relationship with my local paper, I have been accredited so many images that now when people see me taking photos in public, they ask me if I am shooting for the paper - sometimes they think I actually work for the paper, which is fine with me - helps get me invited to cool events. Plus, I often get calls from clients who have seen my photos in the paper and want me to shoot something for actual Cash. Pretty cool. Never forget that having published photographs is awesome, and the newspaper is never going to pay much for a photo - but public exposure from a reliable and respected source like the newspaper is invaluable!</p>

 

[j_g21]

<p>Just to follow up, I really didn't do much about this ordeal. What happened was the young couple who had very little knowledge they were doing anything wrong was being used for a story about local weddings, a question and answer story. They were asked for a wedding photo, and since they did not have their DVD of images yet (it came with their collection), they pulled an image from Facebook and cropped off my logo on the top, then sent it in to the newspaper for use. They had no knowledge of the image being used for the story "teaser" on the front page. </p>

<p>I know that if I took any further action with this, it would just cause more problems than solve any. This paper is the major one for my city, and I do not want to get on their bad side by any means. It's best in my opinion to let it be. I was initially upset, but I'm over it. </p>

<p>Thanks for all of your responses. I will be sure to make it CLEAR on my page not to crop or cut the logo off of any images.</p>