Local newspaper won't pay for photos sent

joeypesci

Don’t know where to put this so putting it here.

So I suspect I might already know the answer but looking for suggestions anyway.
A local news incident happened recently and I took photos on my phone. Then I thought, because they’d done an article before about an issue in the area, I’d contact a local paper.

I mentioned the incident and stupidly sent them photos with the first e-mail just to get interest. Never watermarked them which was a mistake but still. I did ask in the e-mail what do they normally pay for photos.

I didn’t hear anything for over a week then got a reply. I e-mailed back the incident. A day later they’d published the article using the photos I sent them in the first e-mail. I never got an e-mail requesting permission to use them or offering payment. Pointing this out to them they’ve now offered a credit and that’s all. They claim they normally don’t pay for any photos like that and that because I’d originally e-mailed them despite acknowledging I’d asked how much they normally pay for photos, that I didn’t state they couldn’t use them. That doesn’t sound like a valid excuse, that’s like saying “you showed me your car so I stole it. Well you didn’t say I couldn’t steal it”.

So do I just request they remove the images or send them an invoice that they’ll refuse to pay. Considering I haven’t actually agreed to their T&C because they never linked me to it to accept it when they decided to use the images.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/my/account/contributorterms/

[Deleted User]

You sent the photos to them unsolicited.

Can you prove copyright on these images?

If not, I doubt you'll get them to pay you or remove them..

DoaM

You voluntarily sent them the photos, unsolicited. Accordingly they're free to use them as they wish. You can't claim copyright after freely sending them non-watermarked photos.

lammy82

I think it depends on the wording of the email you sent. If you've not given them permission to print your photo in the paper, they've infringed your copyright. The copyright is yours since you took the photo. Not having a watermark doesn't change the legal position.

There's some more info here

If they've printed the photo in their newspaper and hence used it to sell copies then I think you can invoice them for the going rate. If they are just publishing it online then you can demand they take it down, if you're not happy just with a credit.

ThumbRemote

DoaM wrote: »

You voluntarily sent them the photos, unsolicited. Accordingly they're free to use them as they wish. You can't claim copyright after freely sending them non-watermarked photos.

Absolutely not true. Copyright exists on the creation of a piece of work; it does not have to be claimed, it simply 'is'. Whilst sending them to the newspaper would allow them to look at the copy sent, it does not allow the newspaper to make copies of the work.

It's a clear case of copyright infringement. See https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/library/help/copyright/basics/basics.aspx for more info on copyright law.

joeypesci, you are entitled to payment for them. By all means send an invoice, then see https://www.gov.uk/defend-your-intellectual-property/take-legal-action if you really want to take it further. You need to ensure the amount you claim is reasonable; maybe try to find out the going rate for images printed in local newspapers.

joeypesci

Thanks all for the responses. I e-mailed back a polite reply stating the implied permission was incorrect. That would be like me showing them my car then they steal it because "I didn't state they couldn't steal it".

Gave them the invoice or if unwilling to pay to remove the images.

I knew what the outcome would be. They removed the images. Looking at London Freelance for prices they comment local papers are notorious for paying really poorly for images. Appears from this experience they never pay and just want everything free.

Was worth a try at least need all the money can get at the moment.

Hermione_Granger

joeypesci wrote: »

I e-mailed back a polite reply stating the implied permission was incorrect. That would be like me showing them my car then they steal it because "I didn't state they couldn't steal it"

I would say it's more like you arranging for the car to be delivered to someone who wasn't expecting it then they decide to use that car.
Your photo's weren't stolen as you still have copies of them. All they did was to use the images without permission.

Ectophile

Here's what my local newspaper says about submissions from the public:

"If you submit content to the Publisher (including without limitation any text, photograph, graphics, video or audio), you grant the Publisher a licence to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, create derivative works from, distribute and display in public that content in any form and media on or in connection with the Site, at no cost to us and for as long as we require and you warrant that you own or have rights to the intellectual property in such content and have the right to grant this licence. You waive any moral rights in your contribution. You will indemnify us and keep us indemnified from and against all costs, claims, damages and expenses made against or incurred by us as a result of a third party alleging that the use of such content by us infringes the intellectual property rights of a third party."

I'm sure they happily assumed that you sent them the photos for them to publish, with no expectation of being paid.

agrinnall

Ectophile wrote: »

I'm sure they happily assumed that you sent them the photos for them to publish, with no expectation of being paid.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

joeypesci wrote: »

Never watermarked them which was a mistake but still. I did ask in the e-mail what do they normally pay for photos.

/

Although of course if they can show that their normal payment is £0 then the OP is in a weaker position.

unholyangel

agrinnall wrote: »

That doesn't seem to be the case.



Although of course if they can show that their normal payment is £0 then the OP is in a weaker position.

Why would that put OP in a weaker position? What they normally pay is irrelevant. They don't own the protected works therefore they cannot dictate the licensing terms.

If they don't want to pay for images they use then they should only use images that are not copyrighted or images where the copyright owner is willing to grant them licence to publish the works without payment.

agrinnall

unholyangel wrote: »

What they normally pay is irrelevant.

Well why ask that question then? Why not ask how much they would be prepared to pay for the specific picture, rather than some hypothetical figure based on what they may or may not have paid to other contributors? I doubt whether the OP will get anything now that the image has been withdrawn, although it's a good lesson to learn for the future.