russell_flynn

<p>Zack.<br>

Very well said. Thank you.<br>

Rick.<br>

If you really think that I don't have a dog in the fight, you have <em>not</em> been paying attention. This was <strong>my</strong> photo he gave permission to use. <em>Not his</em>. My copyright protected photo I might add. I did that because I wanted the extra protection it gave me. If this guy finds himself jobless when this is over, So be it. My guess is this is not the first time something like this has happened. I know very few employers who would dump an employee over one mistake.</p>

<p>As for being a "caped crusader who is out to save the world". Hardly. But I do believe in protecting what is mine. Redistribution does not appeal to me any more than <em>reserving punishment</em>. These are liberal ideals, and not my cup of tea.<br>

Also, I have no interest what so ever in being a photojournalist. This was simply being there with my camera when a newsworthy event happened. I wasn't even out to make money on it. In fact, I "gave" it to everyone for the credit only. (all 4 local stations, <em>Good Morning America, & CNN</em>). It wasn't until it was <strong>taken from me</strong> that I got my undies in bunch.<br>

The current situation with the local station's editor who gave "my permission" is something that needs to be addressed. If for no other reason, simply because (as Zack said) it will happen again. No matter what we choose to do with our cameras, be it photojournalist, landscape photographer, or whatever, we need to protect our work from infringement. I guess I'm out to protect <em>our</em> world. (minus the cape) "<em>up, up & away</em>!"</p>

<p>Rick, let me ask you this. If this guy (or one like him) tells someone you don't know that it's OK for them to use your things. Would this be OK with you? If it would, my car could use some work, can I use your bank information for a day or two?<br>

Most people don't respond to "doing wrong" unless they are severally punished.<br>

Let me jump on my soapbox for a few lines...One of the problems with our people today is because they never really learned right from wrong while growing up, so they learn that they can do what they want........ i.e. shoot a bunch of kids in school, or any one of countless terrible things people do these days.<br>

I was "taught" behind the woodshed, and learned to respect others belongings (among other things) Now we can't even spank our kids without fear of jail.<br>

My point is, if this guy didn't learn the lessons of life by now, he needs a lesson. Period.<br>

What do I want? To protect you and other photographers.</p>

<p>I am happy with the payment and the exposure, and certainly haved "moved on".<br>

I guess I just want to make sure this guy gets some kind of <strong>strong</strong> <strong>message</strong> so he thinks twice about doing something like this again. Thinking about sending the e-mail chain to his boss.</p>

<p>After reaching an agreement on the un-authorized use of my photos by the Ellen Show (see earlier thread "<em>Ellen show used my photos</em>"), I was able to see why this occurred.<br>

It seems that one of the local station's editor sent an email to the Ellen Show asking if they were still planning on running the piece (containing my photos). The response was yes, but the shows rep was more interested in if they had secured the permission of the photographer (me). For whatever reason, the editor said <strong>yes, they had</strong>!<br>

My question is this. Is the local station or the editor himself on the hook here? <br>

The Ellen Show contact I worked with sent me the email chain between the editor and the Ellen show, so this is not just "word of mouth", but rather the smoking gun.<br>

I guess I should be happy with the money I got from the Ellen show, but it really pisses me off that some lame-brain editor would give permission for something they clearly don't own.<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>I agree with John. Signing the mat is lost if the matt is changed.<br>

For my prints, I use my initials, which is also my logo. It's the same every time, and I use Photoshop to place it IN the photo itself, in the lower right corner, up far enough that it won't be covered by the mat. It's not overpowering in size or opacity (usually around 30%). If possible, I'll use part of the photo to blend it in. Such as placing it in foliage.<br>

It's our "art", and artist's always sign their work.<br>

My opinion.<br>

Cheers!</p>

<p>I know this is an old thread, but just in case you are still wondering...I sign my prints via Photoshop. Always in the lower right corner, out far enough to not be covered by the matt, and I fade it so it is 'just' able to be seen. I don't use my whole name, but only first and last initials. This is also my logo. I like the way it's always consistant.<br>

Just my way.<br>

Cheers! </p>

<p>UPDATE:<br>

I had pretty much written off getting anything out of this, and was prepared to caulk it up to experience. However, I got home Monday night to find an email from a rep of the Ellen Show.<br>

She said that they honestly thought they had permission to run the photos, and offered me the “going rate” for the licensing of the two pics. After some give and take we settled on a total of $750.00.<br>

I did find out something interesting in our emails…<br>

She sent me the email chain between the show and our local news station. In those emails the show asked “if they had secured permission from the photographer to run the photos on the Ellen Show”. The response was “yes, can you tell me when the show will air?”.<br>

Why in Sam’s hell someone who didn’t own the photos and never even laid eyes on the person who does own the photos would give permission to run these photos on a national show is WAY beyond me.<br>

I’m not done with this yet. As soon as I get the release, and find out if the local affiliate is under the protection of that release, I will go forward against the local. At a minimum I will contact the mans boss.</p>

<p>Ellis.<br>

I went to the copyrightzone page, but I'm unsure what you were pointing out. If it's the new rules for Canada, I thank you, but I live in the good old U.S.A.<br>

If there was something else, please let me know.<br>

Thanks!<br>

Harry,<br>

Thanks for the tip, but my calls were not returned and my letters went unanswered.</p>

<p>Tony,<br>

all I can say is that I am NOT in the business of photojournalism. Simply "in the right place at the right time". Allowing the local stations to use the pics for free was done because I was told they would not pay for them. My fall back was to allow them to be used as long as I was given credit for the shots. Not having any experience with the copyright law, I expected to be compensated for unauthorized use AFTER they were copyright protected. I guess I was wrong. A learning experience. Now I know a bit more about this part of the game. I'm quite sure we have all gone into something new with expectations that were not realized because of inexperience. No real harm done. </p>

<p>- Fix your title tag ("Blank Title - HOME" right now) and upload a favicon<br>

Thanks Ian.<br>

This is my first web page, and I can’t figure out how to change this. It’s driving me nuts, and I have to contact the server (Ipage) to figure it out.<br>

As for the home page picture, I’m really not into the photojournalism thing, and don’t really want to start. The two times I’ve had my photos on the TV are more about interesting things about myself. Kind of a footnote if you will. My main purpose for this web page is to show my friends and acquaintances my work. I have sold several prints by simply showing them to people, and feel that I could sell more through the web page if I can ever get it “right”. But for now, this is more of a hobby that pays a little here and there.<br>

Thanks a bunch for the advice. I can see your point on everything (except the Ellen show picture on the home page)<br>

Cheers!</p>

<p>I guess I have to agree. It's not what I had dreams of, but I'm really not "out" anything (other than the $35.00 copyright fee).<br>

I just added the fact it was shown on the Ellen show on my web page. <a href="http://www.flynnphotography.net">www.flynnphotography.net</a> if anyone cares to take a peek.<br>

Thanks guys!</p>

<p>Well guys. I must say that this has been an education! I can't tell you <strong>ALL</strong> how <strong>VERY</strong> much I appreciate your input.<br>

While I've been into photography for many years, this is my first taste of the business end of it. I guess the moral of <em>my</em> story is live and learn. Too bad! I had visions of that 300mm 2.8 lens in my bag! lol.<br>

It's not the first time I've shared my photos with the local news stations. I was there a few months back when the Portland fire department fished a guy out of the Willamette River (alive). I asked about payment before offering them for free, and was told that they don’t do that. After reading some of what you have written here, I can’t help but wonder if they played me.<br>

As for adding this to my resume. I’m really not interested in being a photo journalist. I might be a bit dim here, but I can’t think of anything else I could benefit from doing that. Although I have to admit. It’s pretty cool seeing my work go national.<br>

To answer the question of how the Ellen show got my photos. When the local station emailed me asking permission to send my contact information to Ellen, it was done on the original email with my photos embedded. I assume that they simply forwarded that email to Ellen. I think someone with Ellen saw the word “permission” along with my photos, and off they went, never taking the time to read that I was only giving permission to send my contact information. An honest mistake, but one I would not expect a big time syndicated show to make. I guess I should have removed the photos. Again...Live and learn!<br>

Thanks again all. This is my first time using this forum for my questions, and I have to say I’m not at all disappointed with the response.</p>

<p>Thanks for the response guys.<br>

There are a few other facts that I would have added last night, but it was late and I was beat.<br>

This attorney I talked to (three times) did a bit of digging for information or past legal presidents. Although he is an intellectual attorney, he has never come across a situation quite like this. While most didn’t “fit”, there was one that clearly went in the favor of the photographer, and the newspaper had to pay up. The one thing I’m very happy about is the fact that I copyright protected the photos before she used them. According to the attorney, had I not done this, the most I could have recovered is $200.00 per photo. (Known as actual damage). However because they were copyright protected prior to, she is on the hook for punitive damages as well. (Not to mention criminal charges) This is anyplace between $750.00 to $150,000.00 per photo. The only reason I offered to let her off the hook for three grand is because the lawyer said I should first offer to settle this between us picking a number where she “won’t push back”. I figured a low number like that was the best and quickest way to get this over with. The lawyer did say that he could write the letter, and said it would carry more weight, but at $350.00 per hour, and a quote of an hour needed to write it, I decided to write it myself. Mistake? Probably. But I simply don’t have it. <br>

Now that the November first deadline has passed, I’m loaded for bear, but unsure of which way to start. I find it hard to believe that here in Portland Oregon, there is not one lawyer who will take this case. Not for three grand, but as much as the court will award. <strong>What is the limit in small claims court? Her mailing address is in Burbank CA., will she have to show up in Portland if I file here?</strong><br>

Very pissed off about her cold shoulder but very unsure of which way to go.<br>

In response to this morning’s postings….The attorney touched on the “show damage thing”, and while the fact that the photos were offered for credit only, the real point is that the choice of charging or not is up to me for each use, and while I had not charged anything up to that point, I might have charged her. (In fact, I had planned to do just that). Also, because she failed to even give me the credit, it undermines the actual ownership of the photos, which hurts the future potential income from the photos. Also. Before she used them the interest and requests to use the photos was strong. After she used them it completely dried up.<br>

As for “It looks like greed after the fact ...” It seems to me greed has nothing to do with it. It’s simply a matter of my copyrighted material being used without my permission. Isn’t that what this copyright thing is all about?<br>

Thanks again for all your input guys. I was starting to feel somewhat alone here.</p>

<p>Recently, I shot several photos of a house fire in my neighborhood. It was newsworthy because a 15 year old boy used a ladder to rescue a 5 year old boy who was trapped in the burning upstairs part of the house.<br>

I was there before the news crews arrived, and therefore got shots of the young boy being placed in the ambulance, and the hero shaking the fireman’s hands. I sent the photos to out five local news stations with permission to use them as long as I got credit.<br>

The following day I was contacted by <em>Good Morning America</em> as well as <em>CNN</em> asking to use them. I said yes with the same need for the credit. After these went national, I decided to copyright the photos, and did so. The day after doing this, I got an email from one of the local stations asking for permission to give my contact information to the <em>Ellen Show</em>. <strong>Clearly</strong> saying that it was permission to send my contact info only. Not to use the photos.<br>

I said yes, but heard nothing from the <em>Ellen Show</em>.<br>

Well, a week or so latter I heard that the neighborhood hero was on the <em>Ellen Show</em>, so I found the clip on You-Tube. Sure enough, she used two of my copyrighted photos without asking.<br>

I contacted a local lawyer who gave me some free advise, but said that he would not take the case without money up front.<br>

Acting on his advice, I wrote a letter to the show, (asking to forward it to their legal department), and basically saying that at a minimum she was liable for three grand, so I asked for three grand to forget it all. I gave them until the first of November to respond. Well, that day is now here and I have not heard from them.<br>

Should I keep looking for a lawyer who will take it for a cut, file a claim in small claims court, or just caulk it up to experience?</p>