Advice re commercial businesses using pics without permission

[laptop]

I meant the orginal graffiti artist, laptop. They're not always that willing to make themselves known.

Ah, right - I was thinking of someone graffiting a copy of a photo and selling images of that (yep, Banksy style).

I doubt whether many graffiti artists have joined DACS - yet

And if they're not willing to make themselves known they can't share in income - comes with the, er, canvas. (One could argue that putting a strictly anonymous work in a public place offers an implied licence to copy... though it would be a very good idea to make inquiries to see how anonymous they really are before selling copies of their work.)

 

[editor]

Look at the metadata - if it's been removed, you've an indication the photo you're looking at is stolen (and it's an offence to remove metatada).

A criminal offence?! Really?

Have you got a link please because I've never heard of this.

 

[laptop]

A criminal offence?! Really?

Have you got a link please because I've never heard of this.

The Act with amendments consolidated: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpact1988.pdf

296ZG Electronic rights management information

(1) This section applies where a person (D), knowingly and without authority, removes
or alters electronic rights management information which –

(a) is associated with a copy of a copyright work, or
(b) appears in connection with the communication to the public of a copyright work, and
​

where D knows, or has reason to believe, that by so doing he is inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of copyright.

But I can't find the penalties right now... this implements the 2001 EU Directive on Copyright etc in the Information Society - there are supposed to be penalties...

 

[editor]

Ah, OK. It's only illegal if it's part of a deception, and not an illegal act in itself.

 

[laptop]

Ah, OK. It's only illegal if it's part of a deception, and not an illegal act in itself.

It should be an illegal act, or the UK is in breach of EU law.

inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of copyright.

AFAIK it's not tested in court, but removal of metatdata from one of your photos on this site would seem to be enabling or facilitating an infringement...

 

[editor]

It should be an illegal act, or the UK is in breach of EU law.

That would be a bit weird seeing as it's not unusual for photographers to alter the metadata on their images if, for example, their camera was set to the wrong date.

 

[blackadder]

However, the web designers should have photographed the building themselves or, commissioned a photographer to do a good job.

It is a very ambiguous area. Personally, and it is only my point of view, I don't see any value in snap shots of this type. But, I guess if the image is being used commercially then a fee is due.

It does look as though the image has been lifted from the web. If you are not a professional photographer you're unlikely to get paid. Perhaps just asking for a credit somewhere on the site would be a better approach. If you are a professional photographer then demand a fee.

I'm not a pro photographer or even a good ameture. I just take snap shots of things concerning my town, so I can talk about them on my website which is about my town. The value in my pics are the fact I'm documenting them, like I'm doing with development progress through-out the town. Often, the pics are literally drive by shots, point and shoot and drive off.

I would have been happy with a link or a credit, or even just to have recieved the request to use the pic would've been a start.

Thanks all for the replies, it's been an interesting read.

 

[Dubversion]

the artistic value of the picture is irrelevant in this situation. If the company wants to use it, that immediately gives it a COMMERCIAL value, and thus it's blackadder's right to benefit from it.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

the artistic value of the picture is irrelevant in this situation. If the company wants to use it, that immediately gives it a COMMERCIAL value, and thus it's blackadder's right to benefit from it.

Agreed.

However, if blackadder benefits then the creators of the logo and facade (corporate ID) could benefit. In theory.


People seem to be misunderstanding the point I'm making. It's not about the artistic value of the image. It's about the creators of the image. The picture only has a commercial value because other commercial artists created the scene.

 

[Dubversion]

but if they created the image for the owners, they'll presumably have been paid for their work. And presumably the owners have rights regarding reproducing it.

Now i'm not sure of the legal position of Blackadder selling a photo of someone else's creation (frontage) willy-nilly but presumably there is no copyright or reproduction issue if she's selling it to the people who i assume own the copyright, ie the owners.

Blackadder may indeed have created nothing new or worthwhile or creative. In that case, look at it as a service provided, rather than a creative venture. They needed a picture of something they presumably own, and they used one without permission. Consider it a misappropriation of someone's time, then, rather than someone's creativity.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

...Consider it a misappropriation of someone's time, then, rather than someone's creativity.

Yes.

Someone will own the rights to the original work. Most likely the company represented. So, the argument would not be so much to do with ownership of copyright to the image. The argument would be for unpaid services.

This sort of thing interests me. Sorry if people think I'm dragging the thread out. I think there may be other issues worth discussing here.

 

[laptop]

That would be a bit weird seeing as it's not unusual for photographers to alter the metadata on their images if, for example, their camera was set to the wrong date.

I said it was - or should be - illegal to remove the metatada.

And I thought it would be obvious that "metadata" means the information provided by the legitimate owner(s) of rights in the image.

Of bloody course you can change it on your images.

 

[blackadder]

For those that are interested, I got an email off the MD of the place and along with an apology and a promise to remove the image, he's offered me £30 to spend at his eatery. Oh and it was the design company that lifted the image .

 

[Stanley Edwards]

For those that are interested, I got an email off the MD of the place and along with an apology and a promise to remove the image, he's offered me £30 to spend at his eatery. Oh and it was the design company that lifted the image .

How much does he charge for a giant bottle of Mexican beer?

 

[blackadder]

How much does he charge for a giant bottle of Mexican beer?

I dunno, but I doubt I'll be taking him up on his £30 voucher, I'd rather stay anonymous, still a nice gesture though.

 

[Louloubelle]

please ignore this

 

[Stanley Edwards]

I dunno, but I doubt I'll be taking him up on his £30 voucher, I'd rather stay anonymous, still a nice gesture though.

What? £30 for a point and shoot and you're turning it down. That's like £3000000 an hour or, summat