UKC

Been asked a lot in the past but i was recently searching for Challet accomodation and stumbled upon a website using at least two of my images. The images were uploaded in good faith to a facebook page which is used as a social sharing platform of a certain area in Scotland. The page in question is a well known Inn/Hotel with adjoining said Challets.I wont reveal exact details yet before i get usefull info from UKCr's who might be able to help me pre-contact.
I am flattered but a little annoyed i wasn't asked permission or credited.
How do i go about getting either or do i even have a say in it ?

In reply to jaggy bunnet:

Theft is theft. Get a screenshot of it and, depending on whether you normally monetize your photos or not, ask for credit or compensation. If they don't come through then I guess you could take them to court but that's a lot of effort if it's just some snapshots.

In reply to jaggy bunnet:

Invoice them. I've done this in the past when my images have been stolen.

In reply to jaggy bunnet:

I always believed that once you upload them to fb that they have the rights for that photo.
It's easiest to watermark them in future to stop a similar situation happening imo.

In reply to solostoke:

Surely not if they are using it for gain or reward? If they are making money from your images then surely you should be credited or paid?
Whoever presses the Shutter is the Copyright Owner?

A quick search threw this up:

http://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/


http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2013/07/my-photo-being-used-without-permissi...

http://www.photographers-resource.co.uk/photography/Legal/Copyright.htm

"If its a large company using the image in a commercial way for example an advertisement then you may be able to negotiate a fee for it's further use, while with smaller and non-profit websites they will not have a budget and will be able to find an alternative picture elsewhere or just do without it.

Photographs that you have published anonymously or using a pseudonym such as on websites or online storage systems which you have not marked, or you have issued photos in the past and haven't taken the time to mark them so that you can be identified as the photographer then currently the copyright law still protects you. The period of protection is 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was first 'made available to the public', or if published prior to 1996 then it's protected for 50 years, unless after reasonable enquiry they are able to identify you then the normal 70 year rule after death applies."

In reply to Bootrock:


Actually not that clear.

It depends on the agreement. E.g. sometimes the client commissioned the shoot might require full Ownership of the pics (and if the photog agrees, then so be it). Also I believe also if the the "shooter" is actually acting a glorified remotecontrol and everything on the shoot (from framing, dialin' up the lights, reflectors and camera settings and so on) was done by someone else, the one doing all the work might infact own the pics as well...

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

Think i'll have to email them and ask to take the images down, can't see them parting with cash. Interesting reading all the same. The images are definitly being used as a selling point.

In reply to jaggy bunnet:

Keep us posted! I look forward to hearing what they have to say for themselves.

Perhaps as their newly licensed photographer you may have earned a free night or two at their accommodation?

In reply to jaggy bunnet:

If I was your position, and assuming you aren't a pro, I'd merely ask for a credit and a discount off whatever they are selling. I did find one of my pics from my UKC gallery in use on a French climbing site - quite flattered and not an issue for me

In reply to HeMa:

To simplify what you've said: The photographer taking the picture owns the copyright unless there's a written agreement in place stating otherwise.

In reply to Removed User:

In essence yes, provided we do not assume person pressing the shutter = photog.

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

Copyright infringement is not theft.

It's not OK, but it is not theft. To pursue it you need to know what it is

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

Got a very quick response to my email regarding the situation, very very apologetic, said it shouldn't have happened and the images would be taken down via the web creator asap. I mentioned i would be happy for them to continue as long as i was credited and redeemed by the same terms as other contributers were. I await the reply.
I actually frequent the establishement in point and was chuffed they chose my images, just the manor in which it all came about was the sore point.

Many thanks to all for the helpfull input, i shall let you know the final outcome.

Final outcome : a sincere appology and a meal for two, more than that , it got sorted quickly and with both sides happy. Thankyou once again for all the comments.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Perhaps not in a legal sense, but in a practical sense it is totally theft. If I write a book and use 50% of your manuscript I am stealing your ideas and your potential future income. Intellectual property is still property. To a professional artist taking their creations is akin to stealing a digger off a building site.

Glad to hear of a positive resolution though

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:
It isn't theft.

The reason it isn't theft is that for something to be theft, not only does it have to be taken, but you also have to be deprived of it. The thing itself, not consequential things.

It's copyright infringement. Call it what it is. Anything else is bringing emotion into a matter of legal fact