Newspaper using my photo

Undervalued

JamesFromSomewhere said:

One more thing, I asked that my photo be removed from their website. I got this back:

"I confirm my client has removed the relevant photograph as a courtesy to you.​ I trust this resolves your complaint."
Surely if I can't claim copyright, I have no right to the photo being taken down? By them taking it down, it makes it look like they agree I do own it and it's respective copyright.

No, the key word is "courtesy". The lawyer is arguing that they were not obliged to do this but have done so as a courtesy / gesture of goodwill. No admission of liability!!!

JamesFromSomewhere

Undervalued said:

JamesFromSomewhere said:

One more thing, I asked that my photo be removed from their website. I got this back:

"I confirm my client has removed the relevant photograph as a courtesy to you.​ I trust this resolves your complaint."
Surely if I can't claim copyright, I have no right to the photo being taken down? By them taking it down, it makes it look like they agree I do own it and it's respective copyright.

No, the key word is "courtesy". The lawyer is arguing that they were not obliged to do this but have done so as a courtesy / gesture of goodwill. No admission of liability!!!

Ok, I see where I went wrong there. It's perhaps odd that they've given me the courtesy when they don't think I have a copyright claim, but I can't really argue that.

JamesFromSomewhere

Mickey666 said:

IANAL but my understanding is that the simple physical act of taking a photo gives the photo taker the automatic copyright regardless of the content of the photo.  There are no 'creative' or 'artistic' considerations to copyright, it's a simple 'creation' thing - you made it, you own the copyright.

Also, you can ignore all the lawyer-speak nonsense about "my client takes the view that . . . " because it's legally meaningless.  Their client can take whatever view they like about anything but it doesn't affect the law in any way.

I think the OP is in the right and the fact that the newspaper has involved their lawyers at all is testament to that.  Of course, the flip side to all this is that everyone knows, or should know, that anything posted online effectively becomes public property and open to this sort of abuse.  If you can be bothered to chase down such copying of your own photos posted online then go for it, the law is on your side.

It would appear I need some creative input in the photo. It just seems like an easy argument to make.

"Yeah I made sure the lighting was perfect."
I guess that them passing onto the lawyer might be a general thing they do. The sun passed me onto their head of online pictures, so was odd to have their lawyer. While the legal speak (and my lack of) doesn't faze me, it makes it harder speaking to someone who has experience in law. Watching 'better call Saul', I realise lawyers will try anything to win.

It isn't s huge deal if they don't accept, but it helps when I have my 2nd child on the way. I also dislike how they think they can just take my photo and take a story, though this being posted on an open forum, I accept it's a risk.

Nearlyold

Wouldn't Copyright belong to the creator of the work ie whoever wrote it?

JamesFromSomewhere

Nearlyold said:

Wouldn't Copyright belong to the creator of the work ie whoever wrote it?

I think there is 2 possible copyrights here. Copyright of the note and copyright of the photograph. The lawyer is claiming the only copyright is the note but I think my photograph has copyright of its own, irrespective of the note.

naedanger

JamesFromSomewhere said:

Nearlyold said:

Wouldn't Copyright belong to the creator of the work ie whoever wrote it?

I think there is 2 possible copyrights here. Copyright of the note and copyright of the photograph. The lawyer is claiming the only copyright is the note but I think my photograph has copyright of its own, irrespective of the note.

What about their point that their use is covered by "fair dealing"?

JamesFromSomewhere

Think it's fair to say I don't really have anywhere I can go now.

--------

You have my client's position in relation to this matter. No further correspondence will be entered into.

Yours sincerely

Nearlyold

"You have my client's position in relation to this matter. No further correspondence will be entered into.

Yours sincerely"

Ah well it was worth a try I suppose. 
I'd guess that final communication from them was translated from the original Australian version before it was sent to you.

Undervalued

I think what has happened here is that the UK publications have paid up for the reasons I explained in my first post (middle of page one). As I said it was the widely accepted interpretation in this country and I am not aware of anything that has changed.

I have no idea of the law and / or its current interpretation in Australia. So whilst it is possible they may be on stronger grounds, it is far more likely they are assuming it would be too much hassle for you to sue them from the other side of the world! Unless you go down that route you will never know.

JamesFromSomewhere

Undervalued said:

I think what has happened here is that the UK publications have paid up for the reasons I explained in my first post (middle of page one). As I said it was the widely accepted interpretation in this country and I am not aware of anything that has changed.

I have no idea of the law and / or its current interpretation in Australia. So whilst it is possible they may be on stronger grounds, it is far more likely they are assuming it would be too much hassle for you to sue them from the other side of the world! Unless you go down that route you will never know.

Yeah exactly my thought, unfortunately. Nevermind, it was worth a try.

Thank you.