Stupid I know but help needed

Rob_S_Photographer

£350 for commercial use, whether you sold a copy of the image or not is pretty damn reasonable considering you stole the image. If it was one of my images you wouldn't get off as lightly, i'd be looking to add another zero at least and I would win.

and for you and all the other idiots offering advice you might like to have a read of a recent article on epuk . org regarding the photographer who last week was awarded 20k for image theft..

HTH

Flyonthewall

OneYorkshireLass wrote: »

the letter was horrid saying they could proceed court action and sue me for thousands

They weren't horrid, they were facts (although 'thousands' is probably stretching it just slightly!). If the OP thought it was 'horrid' then the OP should C&P the 'horrid' bits. But if that ^ is the 'horrid' bit then sorry, but I disagree that it's horrid.

Yes, that bit is a fact but it may not have been worded that way.

For example,
You attempted to sell a copyrighted image that belongs to me and therefore I will be taking you to court to sue for thousands of pounds/£xxxx amount.

That is not threatening, just facts.

However,

The image you tried to sell is mine, how dare you try and sell it without my permission! Give me £350 now or I'm going to take you to court and sue you for thousands!

Although stating facts that would be horrid to read. My point was that you can not possibly know if the letter was horrid and the OP simply stated the facts from it, or they just thought the facts were horrid or even that they were just horrified by the thought of that happening.

wilf3uk

Some very bad advice in here.

This might sound harsh, but you have stolen an image and tried to profit from it. The photographer would now like to be paid for having their work taken.

As for the price invoiced, I feel that is a very reasonable fee. I would want a lot more if one of my images were taken.

They can pursue this in court & if they can prove original ownership they will win. I personally store all my images on my computer and externally - all have my data built into them. Most photographers will do exactly the same thing.

Flyonthewall

wilf3uk wrote: »

Some very bad advice in here.

This might sound harsh, but you have stolen an image and tried to profit from it. The photographer would now like to be paid for having their work taken.

As for the price invoiced, I feel that is a very reasonable fee. I would want a lot more if one of my images were taken.

They can pursue this in court & if they can prove original ownership they will win. I personally store all my images on my computer and externally - all have my data built into them. Most photographers will do exactly the same thing.

They didn't profit from it though and it was a stupidly low selling price they asked anyway. How is £350 a reasonable fee? Where is that cost coming from?

soolin

This is something I know nothing at all about so forgive the daft question.

In a mixed lot at auction I bought some framed and glazed artwork, the lot consisted of some oil colour paintings, some water colours and also some photographs - all of them have some form of label on back with the artist name on them.

So, why can I legally sell an original oil painting but not a legally bought photograph? I personally have already taken the photos to the charity shop as I couldn't see they were worth selling, but I do wonder why it is different to a water colour painting.

Flyonthewall

soolin wrote: »

This is something I know nothing at all about so forgive the daft question.

In a mixed lot at auction I bought some framed and glazed artwork, the lot consisted of some oil colour paintings, some water colours and also some photographs - all of them have some form of label on back with the artist name on them.

So, why can I legally sell an original oil painting but not a legally bought photograph? I personally have already taken the photos to the charity shop as I couldn't see they were worth selling, but I do wonder why it is different to a water colour painting.

Far as I know, if you buy a photograph legally you can sell it. Although there are probably rules on stock photos about reselling. You pay to use them rather than own them. The problem in the OP case is that they didn't buy it, didn't own copyright, didn't have permission to use nevermind sell the photo and yet still tried to sell it.

soolin

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Far as I know, if you buy a photograph legally you can sell it. Although there are probably rules on stock photos about reselling. You pay to use them rather than own them. The problem in the OP case is that they didn't buy it, didn't own copyright, didn't have permission to use nevermind sell the photo and yet still tried to sell it.

I see, thank you.

Brooker_Dave

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

and for you and all the other idiots offering advice you might like to have a read of a recent article on epuk . org regarding the photographer who last week was awarded 20k for image theft..

HTH

Perhaps only an idiot would try to compare OP with what happened in that particular case?

"By then the photographer had found that his photograph had been published far more extensively. The court accepted that Daybrook had published it as part of a montage of images, as part of a banner of photographs and online in a montage, in a banner on a large poster, in placard posters, in numerous smaller posters and on postcard sized flyers as well as online advertisements on the website and on Daybrook’s Facebook page. Daybrook had made no attempt to obtain permission and disclosed none of these additional uses."

wilf3uk

Flyonthewall wrote: »

They didn't profit from it though and it was a stupidly low selling price they asked anyway. How is £350 a reasonable fee? Where is that cost coming from?

That cost is the value the photographer places on their image. If the OP wanted to use that image and approached the photographer directly, that is likely to be the price that the photographer would have sold the rights to her for.

The selling price is actually an insult to the photographers work. I would be annoyed that they have devalued my work.
The fact the image failed to sell is irrelevent(it looks like the sale ended because the photographer had requested it) - the seller has tried to profit on an image which wasn't theirs, so they now need to pay the fees stated by the photographer, or go to court and face a larger fine(acquiring fees along the way).

Tbh, I don't think people are informed enough about how copyright works(I didn't until I started my business). Just because an image is on google or facebook, it doesn't mean that it is free to use as you like. The person who created the image holds the copyright of it and you have to ask permission to use it.

Brooker_Dave

wilf3uk wrote: »

so they now need to pay the fees stated by the photographer, or go to court and face a larger fine(acquiring fees along the way).

Or the court may decide there is no case to answer, or decide that the fees are bloated?

There does seem to be a whole lot of newbies trying to scare OP into coughing up?