So a large publication in the UK took one of my images, without permission and used it in what appears to be a blog article. They put a copyright symbol on it, gave credit and when you click on my name it's a direct link to my website. Should I be pissed about the usage or say thanks for posting my images?

That depends..

Are you happy? Or are you pissed?

If you are happy, a polite email thanking them and hinting that maybe in the future they could give a heads up before publishing would be in order.

If you are pissed, send them an email asking them to take it down.

Pretty simple, IMO.

This is getting to be more & more common ...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1136502
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/905375/0?keyword=copyright#8533496


http://thecopyrightzone.com/
http://www.photoattorney.com/

Go to Carolyn Wright's website and scroll down to her article entitle "Excuses, Excuses". She cites a legal ruling that addresses this matter. Here's the quote from the judge making the ruling:

“[t]he fact that the defendant acknowledged the source from which this matter was taken does not excuse the infringement. While the acknowledgment indicates that it did not intend unfair competition, it does not relieve the defendant from legal liability for the infringement.”

John

BluesWest wrote:
Go to Carolyn Wright's website and scroll down to her article entitle "Excuses, Excuses". She cites a legal ruling that addresses this matter. Here's the quote from the judge making the ruling:

“[t]he fact that the defendant acknowledged the source from which this matter was taken does not excuse the infringement. While the acknowledgment indicates that it did not intend unfair competition, it does not relieve the defendant from legal liability for the infringement.”

John

BINGO !!!


Now, whether the OP wants to be thankful for or aggravated by it ... his call. But, as I've espoused before "wrong is wrong" ... OP's call at how he wants to handle it.

I just don't buy into it when others try to sway people into thinking that the wrong is right and they should be grateful for it ... when it perpetuates such blatant theft (taking without permission).

If the OP is happy about it, that's cool I guess. BUT, the mere fact that the OP didn't write ... "Hey guys, I'm so stoked ... my work got published without me even having to do anything or get anything (i.e. payment). That is so cool." kinda tells the story @ where his mood is on this.

Deep inside ... most people know that they've been wronged. Like many that this happens to, they are simply uncertain as to the whole "credit" thing and if that somehow makes it "right" what they know was a swift kick to the gut that they got blindsided by ... leaving them with that sick feeling of being wronged ... that never goes away.

It is that fallacy that somehow the "credit" relieves the wrong (total BS) that confuses people. The judge has nailed it. He clearly points out that the image "was taken" ... which means permission was never granted by the owner ... but the owner already knows that. Here, the judge points out that he knows it too ...and that even if no harm was intended ... a wrong was still committed. And from that, it is appropriate for recompense / restoration be made to the owner ... agreeable form of recompense / restoration is highly variable, but still due the owner.

Great find @ the ruling ... thanks John.

I believe the OP is asking what he should feel. No one can answer that except for the OP. Clearly what one should feel and how one should act are two very different things.

I think the OP knows how he feels (and maybe they are mixed feelings).

I think the OP is asking (trying not to tip his hand which way he feels) what rationale exists for feeling the way he does.

I think the OP (as many others) are in conflict between what they genuinely feel ... vs. ... what they "think" they aren't supposed to feel. It is a hard pill to swallow that people take something from you, yet seemingly (fallacy) it is okay to do so as so many advocate "be grateful" @ credit ... based on things they've been told or heard. In that regard, their gut tells them one thing, but their brain has been filled with something that conflicts their natural and innate gut feeling on the matter.

Then, most people want to be reasonable ... so they somehow have been led to believe that they are making waves over something they have no right to do so ... oooh, oooh someone gave credit ... when in fact, they have every right to do so. The simple reality is that they have been the victim of a wrong action, and their gut feeling typically knows that. Yet, with so many people saying its okay (fallacy) to take and use other people's work without their permission (errantly referring to "fair use" just because no "direct" monetary gain was evident), it is confusing to them as to whether or not their feelings of being wronged are "valid".

Yes, your/my/our feelings are valid ... whether you appreciate the action or don't appreciate the action ... and there is legal basis for the fact that the work was taken without permission that substantiates when your feelings are that you have been wronged.

Simple ... someone took something from you that you didn't give them permission to take. Each one of us may have a different feeling ... or degree of feeling ... to such an event. But, when we feel as though we have been wronged, we shouldn't also be bullied into feeling like we are the "bad guy" for wanting it to be made right.

I'm not advocating that everyone should take the matter to the Supreme Court ... but I am advocating that when you have been wronged, it is reasonable for you to feel wronged and the legal system substantiates that a wrong was committed. How one proceeds to restore from that is highly variable in the myriad of ways it can be approached, but I find it vastly important that when someone has been victimized and wronged, they not be further disrespected by insinuating that they don't have the right to feel "pissed" ... and ought to be "grateful". If they are genuinely grateful, so be it. But for those that are genuinely grateful ... I don't think they come around here asking how they should feel.

Pacman ... sorry to hear @ your issue.

Here's a few things that might also help with some right brain/left brain consideration.

First ... your image is copyrighted to you the instant you create it ... WITH OR WITHOUT a copyright symbol.

Second ... your image is copyrighted to you the instant you create it ... WITH OR WITHOUT registering it.

Third ... misrepresenting someone else' work as yours is ONE FORM of copyright violation. Giving "credit" to the rightful owner & creator of the image satisfies THIS FORM of copyright violation, but does NOTHING to satisfy the requirement to have your permission to USAGE of your work. Taking and using it without your permission is a DIFFERENT FORM of copyright violation ... and giving "credit" does NOTHING to alleviate this wrongful action, yet because giving credit is the "right thing" to do, people misinterpret it as justifying the wrong that was committed. It is a right thing to do @ not forging the authorship, but it still doesn't exonerate the theft and usage (nor does citing "fair use").

The big difference @ registered vs. unregistered copyright is that ... in a legal proceeding the maximum award limits for a registered image are around $150,000 PLUS attorney's fees. For an unregistered image, the award is under $25,000 (maybe under $10,000, I forget) and NO attorney's fees. THIS is why attorney's don't take on cases with unregistered copyrights. The other critical aspect of registered vs. unregistered is that unregistered images are limited to "damages" (i.e. how much money you lost from it, etc.) awards ... whereas registered images can include "punitive" awards to punish the violator so they learn a lesson to QUIT doing it ... hence the hefty max award for registered images.

BUT, this distinction between registered vs. unregistered copyright in NO WAY invalidates your copyright, nor excuses the theft of your image ... whether or not you had a copyright symbol on it, or they put one on it or not. It is/was still yours ... and they still took it (and used it) without your permission.

@RustyBug. There's really no indication the OP knows how he feels. The question was "Should I be pissed about the usage or say thanks for posting my images?" No one can tell the OP how he should feel. Maybe people can help advise the OP on how he should behave. I'm betting this is the conflict that most people find themselves in (not with the way they actually feel and "supposed" to feel, but rather, what they actually feel and how they are supposed to react). But I am no mind reader. That being said, no one is "bullying" the OP into making him feel like a "bad guy".

If I were the OP, I'd probably ask the magazine to take the image down (though it might be worth checking if it has resulted in a large surge of hits to the website), or at the very least, correct the copyright. One thing to keep in mind, it's not uncommon for websites that post a lot of photos to just apply a blanket copyright notice to all of them, even ones that they don't actually control. This is mostly just due to laziness on the part of the web developer, rather than a malicious intent to control the photos. Cheers!

mdude85 wrote:
That being said, no one is "bullying" the OP into making him feel like a "bad guy".


+1 ... not in this post. Most FM'ers are better than that. I was inferring "societal bullying".

Poorly chosen words on my part, perhaps. Maybe a better way of saying it is that many people try to minimize the wrong, or paint it in a different light than what it actually is.

As to the "blanket copyright" ... ... what does that have to do with stealing someone else' work and using it as you decide without their permission? To me, this is just an ever broader wrong ... unless they actually have the owners permission for usage or credit is not required, i.e. work for hire, etc.

The fact that you are suggesting it is commonplace (insinuating propriety) is kind of the "societal bullying" that puts pressure on people to think that the thief might be in the right, therefore the feeling like they shouldn't be "pissed" even when they are. Mind you, I'm not suggesting you are "bullying" ... I'm NOT. I'm saying that the more it gets passed off as "commonplace" ... the more difficult it is for people to reconcile their "pissed" feelings with what is being advocated as "commonplace" appropriate ... even though it is legally wrong.

Respectfully,

Thanks for the replies. I was shocked and very conflicted with my initial reaction. When I saw my image being used I couldn't believe that a respectable publication would take an image w/o consent. I was able to chat with the editor by email, he informed me that the article was used in an on-line article "only" and that it never made it to any print, still not excusable. He volunteered to remove it or leave at my discretion. Having just read Carolyn Wrights "excuses, excuses" That someone suggested. I'm not sure how I'm going to proceed, my wife, family, and some friends say let it go, and take the exposure. However, as a retire law enforcement officer, I have trouble with that.

First things first ... appreciation for your dutiful service.

take the exposure.

In my opinion, there is no more insulting excuse for someone stealing an artist's work than the claim by the thief that the artist will benefit from the "exposure".

John

I just couldn't sit idle by and be the victim, not in my nature, why I questioned myself is beyond me. I went a few rounds with the editor and we came to a mutual agreement. I can say that being armed with the right info makes a huge difference.

That link to Carolyn Wright is a very valuable reference. Plus a couple others from a previous career!

Thanks to everyone who commented, all were appreciated.

Special thanks to RustyBug for the insight on the page and PMs.

Woo-Hoo ... one for the good guys.

Congratulations !!!

I'm glad you arranged a good outcome.

Carolyn Wright is providing a great resource on her website. Everything I know about photo copyright -- including how to submit images to the USPTO -- I've learned from her blog.

John

When I saw my image being used I couldn't believe that a respectable publication would take an image w/o consent.

Glad you got this taken care of, but they are not respectable if they do this. They will continue to do this as long as we let them and not push the issue, and just be happy with a credit.

Andy

Andy, couldn't agree more-in my opinion they're no longer respectable.