mattabou

<p>uhhhh.... wow... not even sure how to respond to yet another volley of insults from you.<br>

Schizophrenic? Quite a reach John.<br>

I am simply trying to be fairly compensated. I am not willing to sue the castle management, nor am I willing to involve the family in this mess. Too many potential negative aspects in my professional relationship with my client. So I am juggling the options and trying to get the castle management to "do the right thing" and compensate me. The castle people changed their direction at one point, which caused me to rethink my position. But Schizophrenic? <br>

Nothing you have added to this thread has been helpful. <br>

You seem very troll-like in your contributions and inflammatory in your ongoing assumptions/conclusions. For some reason you have decided that you want to nail me to the wall here. Someone came to your defense that you are very knowledgable and I should listen to your "wisdom", maybe this is true, maybe not. All I know is that you have been a distraction to the intent of this thread and you continue to try to find ways to insult me. You act as if you are trying to "expose" me for all of my wrongdoings, which is really kind of odd at best.<br>

Are you finished yet? Please say yes. </p>

<p>Hi John,<br>

The assumption train keeps on rolling.<br>

It was never a foregone conclusion. I don't have that much pull with the castle management. I would never use the matriarch of the family to leverage the castle, nor am I interested in suing the castle folks. Since I (really) am "extended family" with the matriarch, as well as having taken over as their family photographer, I am a representative of the family and my actions reflect on the family. I have no doubt that the family would disapprove of me making a spectacle about this with the castle people. It really is quite a balancing act to try to figure out how to be compensated fairly, but not to offend the castle management or the family. <br>

I have appealed to the castle management to "do the right thing".... and if they choose not to, I don't have any recourse.<br>

So yes, at first blush, it seems like I am holding all the cards, but the reality is that I actually have limited options because I can't take the chance of doing something that the matriarch would consider a public tarnishing of the family reputation in their social circles.</p>

<p>John,<br>

Good point about the visibility of this thread. But I'm not as concerned about the content of my posts betraying my case, I AM bummed at myself for using the castle name though. I really like the castle and the people that run it and I wouldn't want this thread to appear for people searching for the castle by name. That was stupid of me... I've looked to see if there is a way to edit these posts, but I don't see anything obvious yet. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The very first thing I did when I saw the image was contact the family. If THEY had given the castle management permission to use the image, I would have closed the case."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In this comment, I simply mean that if the matriarch had given permission to use the images, whether it was within her rights or not, I would have just taken the financial hit and not pursued fair compensation. This doesn't illuminate a question of ownership, this would be a reflection of my personal and business relationship with the matriarch. Wouldn't be worth it to me as her friend or her photographer. <br>

Anyway, thanks for the post John. I am going to look deeper into how I can edit the post. I want to remove the name of the castle.</p>

<p>Simon, Thanks so much for your reply! What a great post. I really appreciate the time you took to write your thoughts and I laughed out loud about the "short and danglies" comment.<br>

Interesting development... the castle owners had a chance to mull it over and have decided to not compensate me for use of the image. They said (and I quote)... "there were no instructions with the image that said we could not use it."<br>

Wow.<br>

With that kind of sentiment in mind, I guess I can sleep in one of their rooms for free since they don't have instructions with the room that says I can't.<br>

I've responded to politely yet firmly to them... we'll see what happens. </p>

<p>Thanks Dan,<br>

I had talked to my lawyer about this and he said the same thing. But since I fully believe that this was an honest mistake (my gut reaction with no supporting evidence one way or the other), I chose to ask for my normal compensation for an image sale. My lawyer (who specializes in infringement cases for photographers) said I could get as much as $30k if I sue them. I'm not interested in suing anyone for an honest error. I just want to be fairly compensated at the same rate as if they had contacted me and bought the image prior to use. That said, if they had grabbed the image from my online gallery and willfully/knowingly/illegally used the image, I would have had no problem trying to sue them.<br>

Anyway, a whole bunch of lessons learned in this scenario. Luckily, the way I handled the situation seems to be sitting well with the castle management and my newfound relationship with them appears to be mutually beneficial since they are in need of updated images and I have hundreds to offer.<br>

Funny how things can work out sometimes.<br>

Thanks again for your clean and direct input.<br>

Matt</p>

<p>Hey Michael,<br>

Heh... totally rethinking this. This is actually a great example of how difficult it can be to get a communication expressed in an anonymous forum. Especially if a receiver of the communication doesn't take the communication at face value or colors the words that I expressed with their own perceptions... leading them to make astounding assumptions that reach far beyond the message.<br>

I made a further mistake by taking offense at the attack and went on the defensive, which just seemed to add fuel the attacker. My mistake.<br>

None of this is a question about whether I agree with the comments or not, I came here to ask opinions. It is the gravity of some of the replies that were off-putting. As I mentioned, the assumptions and accusations that started being thrown around, for a lack of a better word, are truly ridiculous.<br>

John has proved quite clearly in his most recent post that there is nothing I can say or do to change his colored perception of me. "Me thinks thou doth protest too much" is coming to mind. I'm starting to think John is expressing buried guilt of his own shortcomings. I can be comfortable with that thought in seeing the way John has gone after me.<br>

"I could be wrong but, I doubt it".<br>

I guess it is time to disassociate myself with this thread. Hopefully the next time I ask a group of peers for their help and opinions, it doesn't turn into an unwarranted and inflammatory personal attack.<br>

Apparently some of the contributors to this thread need to revisit the "Community Standards" guidelines at the top of the page... "Community Standards: Please take a moment to ask yourself if what you're about to post is going to be useful to the person who asked the question."<br>

</p>

<p>Hola Rick... you have a strong collection of good points and startling assumptions.<br>

1) I am in the US on the east coast. I'm not from Scotland. Why did you think that?<br>

2) I was hired to go on the trip and shoot the hell out of everything. I own the images. I provided the client with prints and albums.<br>

3) I didn't see an innocent mistake. I saw that I was not compensated for an international promotional piece on which my image was the main attraction.<br>

4) The very first thing I did when I saw the image was contact the family. If THEY had given the castle management permission to use the image, I would have closed the case. Why would you think I didn't contact the family first?<br>

5) You must have missed my last post where I said... "I'm NOT using the patronage of the family as a tool to wedge money from the castle owners, I don't need to. They already know what is at stake and they mentioned it themselves."<br>

6) Jumping back up a bit... the "Cash Registers" didn't light up any more than they would had I received a call from a client asking to pay me for image use. My only concern was being fairly compensated.<br>

7) I AM forging a new and good relationship with the Castle people from this experience. They respect the need to compensate me (apparently more than you or John do), and I am making available (for purchase) hundreds of images that I have shot of the castle. I did everything possible to create a balance between protecting my deliverables, and being fair with those whom I was dealing with. Why would you think I was having an adversarial conflict with them? I mentioned a few times that our dealings have been quite amicable.<br>

8) You don't know anything about my relationship with the family which started long before I became their family photographer. Why would you assume to know the relationship I have with this family?<br>

I'm not trying to rip anyone off... but I refuse to have my work, the copyrighted property of my profession used without my consent or compensation.<br>

If you choose to let multi-million dollar companies use your images without any form of compensation or credit, so be it. But don't criticize me for having enough backbone to stand up for myself. </p>

<p>Hola John,<br>

You are making a lot of assumptions.<br>

I find it "irrelevant" because I can't prove whether they illegally used the image knowingly or not. So it is irrelevant whether I believe them or not. I CAN however prove that they used the image without my consent.<br>

I DID suffer a loss. I was not compensated for the use of my work in a world-wide advertisement. Nor was I credited. <br>

I'm NOT using the patronage of the family as a tool to wedge money from the castle owners, I don't need to. They already know what is at stake and they mentioned it themselves. I was part of the entourage and if any part of the entourage was treated unfairly for any reason, the venue would suffer the wrath of the matriarch. (not a position I would want to be in... this woman holds great power via massive amounts of disposable income.)<br>

I DON'T need to worry about a contract for future reference because moving forward there is no contract. The images are not allowed to be used for any reason. This is defined by the matriarch, not me.<br>

John, I appreciate your input, but it kind of feels like you are needlessly taking an adversarial stance. Maybe you would feel differently if one of your images appeared on the cover of a national publication, without compensation or even photo credit?</p>

<p>I actually do think they made a mistake, but that is irrelevant. They sent my photo out in a "for-profit" advertisement to around 75,000 people. They are getting a bill.<br>

We actually had a very amicable conversation. He asked me how old the photo was (in regard to how much I want to be compensated) to which I asked him how old the castles were. heh...</p>

<p>Hi guys, thanks for replying.<br>

I was a hired pro photographer (by the family) and the family brought me with them. The castle management knew that I was the photographer and made special accommodations for me and my work.<br>

I called the new owners of the castle today and made a request for compensation. They are discussing the terms that I set for them and will call me back. They seemed quite amicable and eager to set things right, so I guess we will see how it goes. It works in my favor that I am thought of as extended family with my client... the castle management does not want to have bad blood with a family that spends a half million dollars every two years.<br>

Maybe I'll get lucky on this. Thanks again for your input.</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

New to this forum. Looks like a good location with active members. Glad to be here.<br>

I just ran into an interesting situation. I received a spam mass-email from a very high-end company in Scotland that owns and manages several castles. These castles are used for corporate events and the cost for a week is upwards of a half-million dollars to their clients.<br>

Anyway, the header image in the email was one that I had shot at Ackergill Castle in 2008 when I was brought along with a family for a (very expensive) family reunion.<br>

FYI: In 2008, Ackergill was owned privately by a family, and they were hosting exclusive-use corporate and family clients. In 2011 they sold the castle to a company that was buying up all the castles in the area.<br>

During the trip (in 2008), I was asked by the castle management if they could do a cute thing and print a few of my images (I had been shooting of the family) on the dinner place settings at the fancy-pants dinner table for the family. I provided them with images for the menus.<br>

The images that I had provided were apparently not deleted from the computers and when the large company took over the castle management in 2011, they found these images and used one of them this week in the mass-email.<br>

There are no documents or agreements that I had with the original owners of Ackergill, I had not granted permission for any use other than in the dinner place-settings that were specific to the family I was with.<br>

I believe that the usage of my image in the mass email was a mistake that occurred with the changing of management at Ackergill, but I think I should be compensated by the new management for infringement.<br>

What are your thoughts? How much could I charge for something like this?</p>