Stupid I know but help needed

Flyonthewall

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

£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

Yeah an unsold single photograph listed at £1.20 just once on 1 site is the same as stealing a photo of stars and using them commercially on a wide range of advertising materials...

What the OP did was wrong, but it was nothing like that article. I bet that image is still available online as well so if the photographer really cares they need to go to the source of the sharing. The OP got the photo from somewhere online. If it was from the site of the person who took the photo they need to do more to protect their images.

wilf3uk

Of course there is a case to answer. A court will see that the photographers copyrighted image has been used without permission.
The court can choose the fees that the OP will need to pay, but this will certainly include court costs and some compensation for the image theft. Totaling £350? I would say that figure is highly likely to be exceded.

I am trying to give my views based on me having experience within the modelling/photography industry. Those telling the OP to ignore the messages are certainly not helping her.

Flyonthewall

wilf3uk wrote: »

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.

The OP didn't devalue it, the person sharing it for free on their site devalued it. The fact it didn't sell might suggest it's not worth what they think. It doesn't sound like the listing was ended earlier, just that it didn't sell.

The fact it didn't sell is not irrelevant. They didn't profit from it, it didn't sell at a low value that devalues it and the OP won't be trying to sell it or use it after all this.

I know about copyright and agree with the fact you need permission and they are not free to use just because they're online. More people do need to know about it, especially businesses.

Fair enough the person who took the photo might be annoyed that it's being shared and more so that someone tried to profit from it, but they haven't actually lost anything from what the OP did and there's a good chance a lot of others are using that image without permission which could be costing them money as they're not paying to use it. OP never mentioned using the photo.

The OP was wrong to do what they did, no doubt about it, but threatening to sue for thousands is a bit over the top.

Brooker_Dave

wilf3uk wrote: »

Of course there is a case to answer. A court will see that the photographers copyrighted image has been used without permission.
The court can choose the fees that the OP will need to pay, but this will certainly include court costs and some compensation for the image theft. Totaling £350? I would say that figure is highly likely to be exceded.

How so?

Many people get invoices from parking companies, who then struggle to prove their losses.

wilf3uk

Flyonthewall wrote: »

The fact it didn't sell is not irrelevant. They didn't profit from it, it didn't sell at a low value that devalues it and the OP won't be trying to sell it or use it after all this.

I know about copyright and agree with the fact you need permission and they are not free to use just because they're online. More people do need to know about it, especially businesses.

Would you consider the OP to be acting as a business?

They also stated in the initial post that they had taken a few images off the internet to sell online. These may all belong to the photographer - would that justify the fee?

Did any of the images sell? Have the photographers of those images been compensated?

Its a bit of a messy situation.

Flyonthewall

wilf3uk wrote: »

I am trying to give my views based on me having experience within the modelling/photography industry. Those telling the OP to ignore the messages are certainly not helping her.

The advice was to ask for a breakdown of expenses and wait for any official papers rather than just paying someone £350 because they sent a letter threatening court and demanding payment of £350. If they are serious then a letter from a solicitor would be the way to go.

Flyonthewall

wilf3uk wrote: »

Would you consider the OP to be acting as a business?

They also stated in the initial post that they had taken a few images off the internet to sell online. These may all belong to the photographer - would that justify the fee?

Did any of the images sell? Have the photographers of those images been compensated?

Its a bit of a messy situation.

No. I don't think they ever intended to make a profit from the photographs by sourcing and selling on printed versions. If that had been the case I think they would have started prices higher and attempted to sell more. Sounds like they printed off some images they liked and later figured they'd sell them as they simply no longer wanted them.

They stated they had some photographs and one belonged to a photographer. There is no mention of where the other photos were from. From what I can gather there's only the one photo in question.

Won't argue about it being a messy situation lol.

I am curious though as to how you decide the value of photos. I mean, I have photos online (watermarked/copyright symbol included) and it would annoy me if someone else used them (although I can't imagine anyone would), but I wouldn't think the photos are worth in the hundreds. It seems had someone else taken the exact same photos they make think differently.

pinkshoes

I'd write again asking them to provide evidence that the image is worth £350, given it didn't even sell for a pittance. (Copies of receipts showing sold image price).

Or perhaps counter offer £90 or something?

mgdavid

wilf3uk wrote: »

That cost is the value the photographer places on their image. .........

,,,but the aggrieved have just a bit of a vested interest when it comes to placing a value on the photo, no?

Now, an *independent* valuation might carry a bit more weight....

A claimant cannot just make numbers up out of thin air (well, in fact they can but it won't get them far with the judge)

Rob_S_Photographer

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

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

Only an idiot would try and defend the indefensible.