The Mail pinching stuff...

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:22 pm

This really needs its own thread.
Latest example was the main story on Online until the Boat Race Swimmer distracted the world's press.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Japan.html

Striking pictures. But they belong to somebody else...

http://gakuranman.com/daily-mail-used-m ... t-payment/

The Mail's lawyers will no doubt be claiming again that anything that appears online is in the public domain. Unless it's their website, of course.

Carlos The Badger · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:36 pm

Bastards. I tried to get a comment in earlier about this but no luck. I'll be following Gakuranman's blog to see if the invoice is settled.

Patrick100 · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:38 pm **Posts:** 600

During a past Leveson session, David Allen Green/ jack of Kent/New Statesman mentioned how some papers, the Mail participially blatantly steal pics off faceback etc and other sites when it suits them specially when a non celeb gets mentioned in the news, he asked for other examples with a view to submitting details to Leveson. Should be interesting.

Patrick100 · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:38 pm **Posts:** 600

Carlos The Badger wrote:

Bastards. I tried to get a comment in earlier about this but no luck. I'll be following Gakuranman's blog to see if the invoice is settled.

This got through.

Quote:

These phographs have been stolen from the copyright holder without permission or payment. Disgraceful, cheap, stingy Mail! Have you been taking lessons from our politicians??? Pay up!
- Zoe H, Bracknell, 07/4/2012 18:06
Click to rate Rating 1

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1rNYbaJ6q

Patrick100 · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:38 pm **Posts:** 600

Update:
DM just pulled the page. No longer available.
Good job photographer took screenshots etc.

Carlos The Badger · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:27 pm

Excellent.

I did manage to get a comment through eventually and so did many others saying the same thing, i.e. pay up you thieving fuckers.

Carlos The Badger · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:45 pm

Update update: It now appears to be back up.

All they've done is add a link to the guy's Website. Cynical stuff.

Patrick100 · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:38 pm **Posts:** 600

Carlos The Badger wrote:

Update update: It now appears to be back up.

All they've done is add a link to the guy's Website. Cynical stuff.

Yeah, original source also says:

Quote:

The article is back up on the Daily Mail website. I’ve no idea what they are doing, but please keep pressing. I’m gathering information to make a small claims appeal.

McSnark · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2012 8:41 pm

Carlos The Badger wrote:

Bastards. I tried to get a comment in earlier about this but no luck. I'll be following Gakuranman's blog to see if the invoice is settled.

Ditto. I know they're grubby, malevolent, trolling, heartless, kitten-fucking fucktards of the most epic order, but you'd think they'd credit someone honourably.

Patrick100 · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:38 pm **Posts:** 600

Quote:

*Update 8th April 2012, 04.35am*

Received email from Steve at Associated Newspapers, but when I tried to reply, the email bounced. Steve, please email me from an address I can reply to. Many thanks.

Quote:

From:
DM Online Pictures
*******@assocnews.co.uk

Message:
Hi Michael. I’m in receipt of a web blog regarding the use of your
images on the daily Mail Online. Could you please forward a contact
number so as to resolve the matter and any other issues arising.
Regards: Steve

*Update 8th April 2012, 04.50am*

Steve got back in touch, so hopefully we can start moving things along now and processing that invoice. Just as well I was posting this all on my website, or we might have been waiting a while before they realised I couldn’t reply to the email

.

http://gakuranman.com/daily-mail-used-m ... t-payment/

Big Rob · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:35 pm

I don't know if this has been tested in court. They may well get away with it. Sure there are plenty of people who share stuff all over da webz.... However not many profit financially from it (and the Mail does profit from web advertisements).

Interesting.

Althea · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:10 pm

Big Rob wrote:

I don't know if this has been tested in court. They may well get away with it. Sure there are plenty of people who share stuff all over da webz.... However not many profit financially from it (and the Mail does profit from web advertisements).

Interesting.

I don't think they can get away with it. Your average blogger, Faceberk user and so forth will either give credit or not have any appreciable affect. The Daily Fail is an organisation that should have a legal responsibility to follow due process when obtaining images for its stories.

DTR · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:11 pm

They do this quite often with a local site (SE1) apparently they usually do pay up but only if chased up and they never ask in advance.

Silkyman · **Joined:** Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:31 am **Posts:** 758

Althea wrote:

Big Rob wrote:

I don't know if this has been tested in court. They may well get away with it. Sure there are plenty of people who share stuff all over da webz.... However not many profit financially from it (and the Mail does profit from web advertisements).

Interesting.

I don't think they can get away with it. Your average blogger, Faceberk user and so forth will either give credit or not have any appreciable affect. The Daily Fail is an organisation that should have a legal responsibility to follow due process when obtaining images for its stories.

I've been on the other side of this. I once used an image on a website to promote a gig. It was in good faith that I thought it was a press shot because I'd been pointed in it's general direction by the guy who I was promoting.

Turns out I used the wrong one, and when I was told, changed it within half an hour.

The photographer still sent me a frankly ludicrously expensive invoice. I'd tried to sort it out informally by simply apologising and changin he image as well as giving him a link to his site etc by he was having none o it. Ended up telling him to fuck off to a solicitor if he was that keen, but no way I was paying the thick end of £200 for an hour rental of an image hat about four people would have seen.

He backed down eventually because he couldn't be arsed taking it to court.

I'd have paid him something if he'd been reasonable from the start, and not been a gouging dick about things.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sun Apr 08, 2012 10:49 am

Do you mean this photographer has been gouging the Mail?

The Mail pinching stuff...

Who is online