

Daily Mail Used My Photos Without Permission and Without Payment - ColinWright
http://gakuranman.com/daily-mail-used-my-photos-without-permission-and-without-payment/

======
nicholassmith
Oddly enough I'm one of the photographers listed in one of BJP articles (Kate
Middleton related). My experience of the situation was that they were willing
to negotiate but admitted no blame, I priced high and negotiated down to a
reasonable settlement.

The interesting thing is I'm in favour of copyright review, I believe the
current system as it stands is inherently flawed, for the single reason that
it favours the biggest boy in the gang rather than the creator, so whilst the
law is _technically_ on your side it can be tricky to navigate.

~~~
Gakuranman
That's pretty much what happened to me as well. At first they wanted their
standard fees per photo of £40 for the first, £20 for the second and £10 for
any after that. Those fees were terrible, and I was successful in getting a
lot better rate. I ended up waiving my unauthorised usage fee and setting for
a a reasonable amount that I would have been happy with if they had contacted
me in the first place. Still, several people are saying that I should have
stuck to my guns and demanded my original invoice and that I was too lenient.
Perhaps a learning experience for me...

~~~
nicholassmith
I was also successful in getting a better rate, but I invoiced very high (£1k)
and negotiated down to a reasonable rate for both parties, but I was told
afterwards I could probably have pushed my luck.

------
VMG
It is strange that he is counting on the support of HackerNews which usually
isn't a strong supporter of copyright. Maybe things are different because the
victim is a small independent artist and the offender is big company, and a
tabloid on top of that?

Maybe the underlying pattern simply is supporting David against Goliath?

Edit: For those who downvote me, please take the time to write a reply.

~~~
ColinWright
_> It is strange that he is counting on the support of HackerNews ..._

I find it a continuing source of confusion that people can't distinguish
between a person who submits an item, and the author of the item being
submitted.

I submitted this item. I did not take the photos.

The person who took the photos did not submit this to HackerNews.

~~~
w1ntermute
TBF to the GP, the author updated the post with the following:

> Please keep up the support by spreading the word, especially to large social
> media sites like HackerNews, Reddit, Digg, Stumbleupon and any other media
> outlets.

~~~
ColinWright
Ah - noted. I've seen this confusion many, many times, and possibly jumped the
gun in the case.

------
ticks
I find it odd that the photographer started to complain when the article was
apparently pulled. If I ran a publication and there was a copyright dispute
relating to one of my author's articles, then I would pull it offline until
the author could prove the content was licensed.

~~~
tshtf
Where are you seeing this? From what I read in the blog entry, they pulled the
article at least two hours after he published the original complaint.

