The Mail pinching stuff...

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

No.

It was an otherwise unrelated anecdote.

Carlos The Badger · **Posted:** Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:28 pm

Pah, looks like he's (semi)bottled it. Accepting a lot less than even the recommended charge for the use of his pics. Dropping the 'unauthorised usage' would have been fair enough but he should have stuck to his guns over the rest.

Plus, he hasn't actually received a penny yet.

http://gakuranman.com/daily-mail-used-my-photos-without-permission-and-without-payment/

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

Accepting the phone call allowed them to "sweet talk" him into a lower offer and there's no written evidence or paper trail about what was said/agreed.

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

He finally got paid but they're still doing it to others.

Quote:

*Update 21st April 2012, 02.17pm*

Looks like not two days after my photos were stolen, another photographer had the same thing happen to him. His photos were taken and he wasn’t provided with a link back to his website. This post was used by the Daily Mail to create this article. Peta Pixel also picked up the story here: http://www.petapixel.com/2012/04/20/the ... -got-paid/.

Still haven’t received payment on my own images, but the invoice will supposedly be processed very soon, by 25th April. Fingers crossed!

*Update 25th April 2012, 11.24am*

The Daily Mail finally sent the payment to my bank account today, which hopefully brings this issue to a somewhat amicable close. Throughout the episode however, I have seen numerous other accounts by photographers who have been subject to the same sort of underhanded practices. Images taken and used without consent, manipulated, watermarks removed, unpaid (etc.) This all taking place on a large, money-making corporation website is unacceptable. I sincerely hope that the Daly Mail stops these practices and starts contacting photographers to licence the use of their images in advance, paying them fair rates.

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

However they seem to be trying to cover them selves on this latest article.This repeatedly put after every captioned photo. Pushing it if you ask me.

Quote:

(All photographs used in the spirit of publicity, criticism and review.)

Quote:
On set with the Hollywood greats: Rare film stills of Rita Hayworth, Greta Garbo and Sophia Loren offer glimpse of iconic stars at work and in character

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... acter.html

Fozzy · **Posted:** Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:28 am

I used to work with someone who represented an individual who had been the subject of quite a lot of notoriety in their youth and in respect of whom there is an extremely well-known photo floating around to which the client had the rights. Every time it popped up in the papers and mags he basically sent off a polite letter asking the publisher to cough up, and mostly had no trouble. With one exception - time after time. You've guessed which paper that was.

Abernathy · **Posted:** Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:34 am

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:11 am

I see now that the i has taken up the practice, nicking an entry from the Vagenda site and editing it to read differently...

The story is ongoing. My advice was to do the double-fee invoice trick. The stuff's been published now, might as well make some money out of it.

satnav · **Posted:** Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:59 am

I see the Mail are also asking readers to send in their pictures of the Jubilee celebrations I've no doubt all of of these pics will be published without any payment being made to the person who took the photograph.

PaulOnBooks · **Joined:** Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:10 am **Posts:** 414

satnav wrote:

I see the Mail are also asking readers to send in their pictures of the Jubilee celebrations I've no doubt all of of these pics will be published without any payment being made to the person who took the photograph.

Crowdsourcing - it's the new journalism.

Re image (or text) use, putting it simply , so glossing over the fine detail: the owner of an image maintains copyright regardless of what use is made or where * . He can allow the image to be used elsewhere but can state the conditions and any form of attribution required. He does not have to explicitly state copyright. Courts will usually award standard fees, damages and costs against plagiarists. There is a "fair use" defence but it's wooly and tends not to succeed where the thief is a commercial site.

* unless he submits to a medium which says that one of the terms of submission is handing over of copyright - most forums do this, for example.

Copyright owner can issue a Creative Commons licence - basically says the pic is fair game but may still require attribution.

Look up DMCA for more info, especially DMCA takedown notice if one of your pics (or indeed written material) is copied.

TonyHoyle · **Joined:** Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:48 pm **Posts:** 211

Neither of those (fair use or DMCA) apply in the UK - in the latter case, I'm glad as it's basically made it impossible to post anything that might annoy someone with power (sites always act on takedown notices no matter how frivolous - because the consequences of not doing so are too great).

The fair use case is interesting - it's a common belief that it exists in the UK (we have no parody exceptions either - so potentially taking the piss out of Dr.Who for example could be a copyright violation) but generally we survive by the non-enforcement of laws - eg. VCRs when they were created were impossible to use legally* (because making a copy of a TV programme is always a copyright violation) but nobody ever got prosecuted for it.

* And may still be - Every now and then someone tries to get the gov. to improve the law but I'm not sure it ever got as far as an actual bill.

Althea · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:23 am

TonyHoyle wrote:

The fair use case is interesting - it's a common belief that it exists in the UK (we have no parody exceptions either - so potentially taking the piss out of Dr.Who for example could be a copyright violation) but generally we survive by the non-enforcement of laws - eg. VCRs when they were created were impossible to use legally* (because making a copy of a TV programme is always a copyright violation) but nobody ever got prosecuted for it.

* And may still be - Every now and then someone tries to get the gov. to improve the law but I'm not sure it ever got as far as an actual bill.

But if it went to court, it's entirely possible a Fair Use law would be a result of it.

PaulOnBooks · **Joined:** Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:10 am **Posts:** 414

TonyHoyle wrote:

Neither of those (fair use or DMCA) apply in the UK - in the latter case, I'm glad as it's basically made it impossible to post anything that might annoy someone with power (sites always act on takedown notices no matter how frivolous - because the consequences of not doing so are too great).

The fair use case is interesting - it's a common belief that it exists in the UK (we have no parody exceptions either - so potentially taking the piss out of Dr.Who for example could be a copyright violation) but generally we survive by the non-enforcement of laws - eg. VCRs when they were created were impossible to use legally* (because making a copy of a TV programme is always a copyright violation) but nobody ever got prosecuted for it.

* And may still be - Every now and then someone tries to get the gov. to improve the law but I'm not sure it ever got as far as an actual bill.

Sorry, I meant to make the point that some non-US sites do react to DMCA notices - some don't. As a content provider, I regard it as a very useful weapon in the increasingly fraught battle with plagiarists. Not always effective - there's a German-hosted site for a Canadian band that has a huge chunk of my content that outranks the original in SERPs - losing me a few hundred quid per month - they just laugh at takedown nottices.

Carlos The Badger · **Posted:** Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:50 pm

This is quite old (and it might have appeared on here before) but it's from a site that I visit (mostly when England are playing) and I know what hard work they do. I don't know why I've not come across it before.

http://www.englandfootballonline.com/RipOff.html

Carlos The Badger · **Posted:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:45 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2166849/A-prim-proper-Rihanna-Jennifer-Anistons-mugshot-obese-Johnny-Depp--Hollywoods-elite-youve-imagined.html

From the originators Faceberk page.

Planet Hiltron wrote:

Trying to figure out how I got over 200 new likers overnight. How did you find me?

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Planet-Hiltron/150175044998030

Looks like the images were posted elsewhere and the ShiteRag nicked them from that.

MacGuffin · **Joined:** Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:07 pm **Posts:** 427

Yesterday, HuffPost UK published an article about Georgia Ford, who received lots of abuse on Twitter after asking if Wimbledon was played in London every year. They illustrated the article with tweets from Beant, Laurence Green, Paul Lewis, Simon Harrison and Farrah. It said:

Quote:

Even after the account was deleted people continued to make sly comments

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/08/georgia-ford-twitter-wimbledon_n_1657228.html?1341761803&utm_hp_ref=uk

Today, MailOnline has published an article about Georgia Ford, who received lots of abuse on Twitter after asking if Wimbledon was played in London every year. They illustrated the article with tweets from Beant, Laurence Green, Paul Lewis, Simon Harrison and Farrah. It said:

Quote:

But even after Georgia's account was deleted people continued to make sly comments.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2170826/Sunderland-fan-21-forced-Twitter-knowing-Wimbledon-London.html

What a coincidence!

The Mail pinching stuff...

Who is online