Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Let that be a warning - Photos aren't free


RichardN00 e2
8 430 1 United Kingdom
28 Sep 2013 10:35AM
I don't know if anyone else has seen this...

Taking a photo off a social networking site and using it without payment cost this company £20,000

Newspaper Article


From the article

"ONE of Nottingham’s biggest nightclubs has agreed to pay £20,000 after illegally using this picture in promotional material.

Daybrook House Promotions Ltd (DHP), which runs Rock City, used the image in connection with a post advertising Floor Fillers events."

"DHP claimed it did not realise it was not entitled to use the image because it was freely available of social network site tumblr."

The photographer Jason Sheldon complained, and was offered £150, but he wasn't happy and took DHP to court, the judge awarded damages of £5,682.37 plus interest and costs.

"Mr Sheldon said DHP had now paid £20,000 in an out-of-court settlement"

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

sherlob e2
8 2.4k 126 United Kingdom
28 Sep 2013 10:40AM

Quote:the judge awarded damages of £5,682.37


Any one else think that sounds like an odd number to award Wink

That said - its perhaps the subject of the image - having clear commercial value - that led to the photographers successful claim.
franken e2
12 3.3k 4 Wales
28 Sep 2013 10:42AM

Quote:the judge awarded damages of £5,682.37

Any one else think that sounds like an odd number to award Wink



Probably includes a lawyer's fee.

Ken
28 Sep 2013 11:11AM
What's so nice about the article is the (appropriate to the picture) comment:
'...... after gaining exclusive backstage access to the Birmingham leg .......' GrinGrinGrin
Nice bit of journalism Smile
28 Sep 2013 11:19AM

Quote: the judge awarded damages of £5,682.37 plus interest and costs.
"Mr Sheldon said DHP had now paid £20,000 in an out-of-court settlement"



Don't quite get this. The judge awarded damages plus costs, etc - yet they've made a £20k out of court settlement?
I thought an out of court settlement was instead of going to court, yet they must have gone if a judge awarded damages?
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
28 Sep 2013 11:28AM
...maybe the costs were extensive, and wouldn't the award be marked against them, and readily searchable?

I suspect the fee for the actual photo use became inflated when he discovered it was used "more extensively than first thought". Although the award isn't meant to be punitive, it is always likely to be at the high end of any 'going rate'.
keithh e2
11 23.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
28 Sep 2013 2:27PM
The photographer billed them just over a grand but they paid 20 grand out of court.

You wouldnt get that money even if it was a world wide campaign.
Who was the journalist on this story - Max Hastings? Wink
Gundog e2
1 624 Scotland
28 Sep 2013 2:53PM

Quote:the judge awarded damages of £5,682.37

Any one else think that sounds like an odd number to award Wink

Probably includes a lawyer's fee.

Ken



Photograph Fee: £2.37
Lawyers Fee: £5680.00

Wink



....and I wonder how much the Nottingham Post paid to use the same photograph?

.
RichardN00 e2
8 430 1 United Kingdom
28 Sep 2013 2:57PM
I suspect the story was given to the paper by the photographer himself or a friend of a friend, the Nottingham Evening Post isn't renowned for its investigative journalism...

But DHP haven't denied it yet
KevSB
10 1.5k 5 United Kingdom
28 Sep 2013 3:51PM
The sum reflected the fact the Professional photographer who took it realised by making the value over 5000 pounds it would not be handled by the small claims court, the judge agreed that the subject matter has more value dependent on the fame of the person in it, the photographer was also a member of the British Press Photographer’s Association and would have sold the picture who ever would pay it based on the current reproduction rights.

If a claim is over 5k then it goes to the Patents County Court, The photographer assessed it value from reproduction based on quotes from getty images and others .

The Judge found the correct measure damages was £5,682.37, inclusive of VAT and interest. I have to assume the other figure was bad journalism or costs. One of the reason as a non professional we don't take people to court is those costs, in some cases like here possibly more than was awarded. Small claims courts are cheap but the awards are far less
lemmy e2
7 2.1k United Kingdom
28 Sep 2013 8:02PM
What baffles me is why anyone would put a commercially valuable picture on a public site. I have the last studio picture ever taken of The Who when Keith Moon was alive.

I should put it Facebook? Where do these people come from? Can anyone explain it to me?
Gundog e2
1 624 Scotland
28 Sep 2013 9:16PM

Quote:What baffles me is why anyone would put a commercially valuable picture on a public site. I have the last studio picture ever taken of The Who when Keith Moon was alive.

I should put it Facebook? Where do these people come from? Can anyone explain it to me?



Even better - stuff Blush Facebook and put it on here. (High res please)
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
28 Sep 2013 9:48PM
£5,682.37 was the photographer's final evaluation of licensing fees, having discovered more widespread use of the photo than he initially invoiced for. The £20,000 figure includes legal costs. As detailed here .
lemmy e2
7 2.1k United Kingdom
28 Sep 2013 11:24PM

Quote:having discovered more widespread use of the photo than he initially invoiced for


I am still baffled - why would anyone put a picture with commercial value on a public site, as Gundog wittily implies I should?

Today (Sunday) I am going out to a few French car boot sales in Aude. I shall make sure to post on Facebook how much I will have in my wallet and which pocket I keep it in. Is it me or are these people crazies?
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
29 Sep 2013 12:17AM
I get the impression it was swiped from him and posted on Tumblr by someone else. Doesn't explain why he published it on the internet in the first instance, but it would increase the likelihood of someone 'borrowing' it.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.