UKC

Looking at an indoor climbing walls website I found a photograph I took not at the wall being used without my knowledge, shouldn't I at least have been asked before it was used ?

In reply to wobl:

Out of politeness, yes.

Legally, I don't believe so (think the Press).

Neil

In reply to wobl:

You own the copyright. They have no right to use it without permission.

In reply to Neil Williams:

You have misread the OP I think. It's not a photo OF the OP but a photo that the OP TOOK.

In reply to wobl: They can't use it without your permission, it is your property. You can ask them to either pay you for it or take it down.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Sorry, I read it wrong.

They can indeed not use a photo you took without your permission. You could potentially sue them over it (though don't expect to climb there again if you do!)

Neil

In reply to wobl:

1. Did you ask permission to take photographs at their site?

2. Have you suggested they give you some free entry tickets as good will?

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

I don't think it is a photograph taken at the wall, not 100% sure from the OP.

In reply to The New NickB:

I think the bit that says:

a photograph I took not at the wall

is reasonably clear.

In reply to wobl:
But if the OP put in the climbing wall's website, there may have been small print to say they may well have permission to use these pictures unless you object by ticking the box in the corner sort of thing.

In reply to tony:

Doesn't read very well and others seem confused, but it was the assumption I made.

In reply to wobl: the photo was taken outdoors winter climbing and Not at the wall

In reply to wobl:

Ok, that's cleared that up, so next question...

how did they get hold of your picture in order for them to reproduce it?

JW

In reply to wobl: and wasn't posted on their site but given to the person in picture

In reply to John Ww:

My money is on the OP being a "Facebook friend" of the wall

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Or maybe not (wobl posted at the same time as me so I didn't see his/her last reply)

In reply to tony: oops - soz, didn't read OP closely enough.

In reply to wobl:

Did the person in the picture give it to them?

Are you a professional photographer who relies on the income from photos like these?

If not, I suggest you either sue your friend, give up climbing and take up writing threatening letters to the wall.

Or, just carry on.

(Although actually, I think the free entry idea above is quite good too!)

In reply to wobl:
What did they say when you emailed them to complain?

In reply to Toreador:

They probably said "2/10"

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat: yep he did, only just found it on site and Not had a chance to speak to him.
I don't intend sueing anyone but with pictures so easily transferred today I wondered about the legal ownership of picture and protecting from future possible commercial use of images

In reply to Philip:

The problem with that approach is that it just encourages more of the same. The most reasonable course of action would be to inform the wall owner/manager of the fact and give them the opportunity to (a) remove the picture and/or (b) offer some recompense. In my experience most violations like this are through ignorance/thoughtlessness rather than malicious and the matter ends there. Everyone wins: They get an education (priceless), you get the satisfaction of asserting your rights (and possibly a free climb) and other photographers - pro or not - get a slightly reduced chance of having to go through the same thing again.

In reply to wobl:

Invoice them at triple rate for unauthorised usage.
If people started to bother asserting their copyright rights, it'd make people think twice before nicking photos.

In reply to wobl:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

In reply to TryfAndy:

But did they "nick" the photo?

Wobl says he took the photo and passed it on to the friend who was the subject of the photo. This friend then gave it to the wall.

As far as the wall in concerned - won't they just assume the middle man had the rights? Perhaps this middle man said they had the rights to post "his" photo?

In reply to mfeet2: but the image wasn't copied from an internet site but from a copy given to a private individual for personal use.

In reply to wobl: Then your gripe is with your friend.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I don't think that's correct. Just because his friend is the subject of the photo does not mean the friend owns the permissions to the photo. If the OP didn't specifically allow the website to use the pic he should be suggesting they pay him a fee to license it or, alternatively, remove it from the site.

Personally I'd just ask that they simply attribute the image to me and that'd be fine. If they were actively using the pic to make money, like advertising an indoors to outdoors course or something, then I'd be wanting them to pay me for the usage.

In reply to wobl:

As a very much amateur photographer (i.e. rubbish) I would be proud that they want one of my photos on their wall. I would then point out to everyone that i took the photo.

In reply to DaveR: Me too, although if i were a professional photographer i would think differently.

In reply to jonathan shepherd:

Agreed, which is why I pointed out my amateur status

In reply to DynamoCL:

The responsibility to check who owns the copyright rests with the user (the wall owner/manager in this case). If they didn't ask the 'friend' then they are liable. If they did and he claimed copyright then he's in the wrong. It may seem trivial in this case (the copyright owner doesn't seem too litiginous) but a similar case have recently been air here where the copyright owner was Getty. Now it becomes an expensive mistake!

In reply to Marek:

And how to deal with it: http://blog.julesmattsson.co.uk/2011/11/17/twitpics-copyright-making-infrin...

In reply to wobl:
Do you think you might be getting a bit 'handbags at dawn'? I'd be pretty chuffed if someone nicked one of my photos for a climbing wall. Chill dude.

In reply to birdie num num:

Would you tell someone to "Chill, Dude" if the wall nicked his rope, his wallet or his car? Probably not. Use of copyright material without permission is every bit as much theft.

Likewise, being 'chuffed' that someone stole your photo is like pleased they stole your jacket and feeling flattered that they admired your taste

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

No it's not. I don't know about the legal definition, but if someone steals my rope, or my wallet, or my car, then that's going to cost me, in both time and money, to rectify. If somebody 'steals' a photo I took, assuming that I am just an amateur photographer and had no intention of making money from the shot, then it takes me precisely no time or money to rectify.

In reply to rmt:

The issue is not so much whether copyright infringement is or isn't theft (it isn't), it's about whether as a member of society you should care about your rights. People giving up their rights because it happens to suit their particular position undermines those same rights for others who - as in this case - quite reasonably rely on those rights to make a living. A better example might be the right to free speech. I may not particularly care whether I can say something in public (because I have nothing controversial to say), but I should be concerned if the government tries to limit that right just because some other people are saying things it doesn't like. Much of what we have achieved as humans is down to the concept of society and the idea of 'common good'. We shouldn't lightly give that up.

In reply to Marek: Yes! What happened to his photo after he gave it to his friend is on precisely the same scale as limiting his right to free speech.

In reply to
Chill dudes. It's only a picture.

In reply to Marek:

The fact that someone is paid for a service should not create an extra burden on those who are happy to provide the same service voluntarily.

In reply to timjones:

Except in this case the OP was not 'happy to provide the same service voluntarily'.

In reply to birdie num num:

Censorship: "Chill, dudes. It's only words."

It really boils down to whether you believe in the concept of 'rights' enshrined in law. If you do, then you shouldn't be so blasé about illegal infringement of rights. History and legal practice teach us that rights are like skills - hard to acquire, but quickly lost if you don't execise them: 'Use it or lose it'.

In reply to timjones:

How did the wall know whether the photographer was happy to provide the service voluntarily? Clearly they didn't, either his mate was asked and gave the wrong answer, or they decided they'd take it anyway and hope it was OK (or never noticed).

In reply to Toreador:

Which isn't about "exercising rights", it's about basic consideration and politeness.

I don't care if someone uses my photos for things to a massive extent, as long as they aren't making a fortune out of it in which case I'd want a cut. However, it's rude to do it without asking.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:
Not to mention illegal

In reply to Neil Williams:

Agreed. When people ask me I usually give permission FOC, unless it's for a book or commercial website. When they don't ask and steal instead I'm more assertive of my rights.

In reply to Toreador: But this isn't about a "stolen" photo, it "might" have been used inappropriately but it was given to the wall.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yes it is stolen. To give the wall's web manager the benefit of the doubt they may have acted in good faith, though they should have known better than to just take a pic of someone and use it. Indeed since, unless contracted otherwise, copyright usually belongs to the photographer any pic of you climbing is almost certainly not your copyright. Merely owning a copy of something does not give you the right to reproduce it. I've loads of films on dvd but I can't go round posting them on the internet. There is a lot of supposition on thjis thread but what is clear is the pic is the property of the OP who has clearly stated that he did not give permission. The wall must now seek permission from the OP to use it, agree a fee (which could be anywhere from nothing upwards but the key word is 'agree'. Without the copyright holder's agreement it is. like it or not, theft.

In reply to Wiley Coyote: Is it still theft if the wall asked the person who gave them the photo "can we put this on our website?" and the person said "yes"?

In reply to wobl: What's the fuss.. Unless I was a professional photographer, I'd be chuffed if they used my photo.

E

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Has it been established that was what happened? It's possible I missed it.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Copyright infringement is immoral and illegal but it is *not* theft (despite what FAST etc might have you think). Theft requires an intent to permanently deprive.

Neil

In reply to Toreador: No, it was a "what if" question, the facts haven't been established. Not that that should prevent general hand-wringing and knicker-twisting.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yes, because that person has no right to give permission, any more than I can say to say to you 'Nip into Tesco and help yourself to whatever you want. No need to pay'.

If they thought they had permission from the copyright holder that might be mitigation but it still does not make it legal.

In reply to Neil Williams:
True. Sloppy colloquial use of 'theft'. A bit like wind 'farm'

In reply to Neil Williams:

It does permanently deprive you, mainly of the income that would be generated by the image if they'd have paid for it.

In reply to TryfAndy: its only a photo! ask them to credit the image and give you a free session pass, the person who put it there is probably just a centre worker with no specialist knowledge about image copyright, personally I'd be chuffed to see the image used if it was mine

In reply to TryfAndy: He wasn't going to sell it, so he's been deprived of something he didn't have and wasn't going to have? The horror!

In reply to Marek:

Sorry I slightly misworded my post.

I've had pictures used on websites without consent and not been bothered by it. Your post implied that I should have challenged it for the benefit of photographers who seek to profit from their pictures. Is it really my job to pursue a principle for the benefit of the pro's?

In reply to TryfAndy:

Nope, the definition of theft requires the intent to permanently deprive *of the object itself*, not consequentially. So, you could only have stolen my photograph if, say, I only had a physical, printed copy and you took that.

This does not justify copyright infringement, but let's talk about it for what it is and not throw an emotive definition at it.

Neil

In reply to timjones:

No, not really. I'm making a somewhat more esoteric argument - perhaps just for the sake of it - that societies define rights (protected by law), usually to protect some weaker party against a more powerful one (including itself). Those rights are deemed to be important in preserving the values of that society. For this to work, everyone - or at least a significant majority of the members of that society - have to work to stop those rights being abused, eroded or generally ignored, even when a particular right is of no obvious immediate benefit to the majority of the individuals. Copyright is just such a right, designed to give the creator of some art protection from having that art exploited by others without some recompense. Art is considered valuable in this society.

What I was proposing was that it is dangerous for members of a society to ignore the erosion of rights just because they are not immediately relevant to them at that time. If everyone does that, then much of what defines 'society' gets overrun by political and commercial interests. Personally, I don't like the sound of that!

There's an old statement which sums it up quite well (although in somewhat mre serious circumstances)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

In reply to Marek: Jesus, this is serious! First the use of this bloke's photo was going to lead to the loss of freedom of speech and now it's going to cause another holocaust. Something must be done.

In reply to Marek:

Exactly, Marek, well said and I agree with everything you've posted in this thread. Ignore all the people who only care enough to post 'who cares?'.

It *is* a slippery slope, though this is just one part of it. When it's another part, that they care about, they'll be the first to whinge - conveniently forgetting that their apathy last time encouraged it to happen this time.

In reply to Damo: We don't know what wobl said to his mate, we don't know what his mate said to the wall, we don't know what the wall asked his mate, but we're on the slippery slope of the thin end of the wedge?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I don't know why I do this, but anyway...
No, I suggested no causality like that. I didn't say one would 'lead' to the other. I suggested that the attitude that rights don't matter and shouldn't be defended could lead to either outcome (trivial or serious). The causation was the 'why care' attitude, not the incident.

In reply to Marek:

Don't feed the troll!!

In reply to Marek: I don't know either, it's been pointed out, repeatedly, that we don't know what happened or what was said to whom, but you've still concluded that people don't care about "rights".

In reply to owlart:

I've learnt my lesson - I'm out.
Although this wasn't technically a 'troll', but that's another argument!

Heh, a discussion about rights, I find ironic because...

Copyright is about the removal of rights from everyone else, thereby granting a monopoly to the author.



RE OP you should have been asked, go ask who put together the website and see what the situation was, they may not have thought about it.

In reply to wobl: Get over yourself and enjoy the publicity

You own the copyright and it is your responsibility to enforce it. Anyone can do anything they want with your images unless you enforce copyright. It does not matter that you gave the image to someone else and they passed it on to the wall. Its your photo and they did not have your permission to use it. This sort of thing happens a lot and needs to be stamped on. Complain nicely.

In
reply to paulfrancisl: my concern was what rights anyone has to images now we can transmit and copy so easy and not publicity.
Think the thread has covered everything I was after, thanks all.