Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Let that be a warning - Photos aren't free

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

RichardN00
28 Sep 2013 - 10:35 AM

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"

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
28 Sep 2013 - 10:35 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

sherlob
sherlob e2 Member 82325 forum postssherlob vcard United Kingdom125 Constructive Critique Points
28 Sep 2013 - 10:40 AM


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.

Last Modified By sherlob at 28 Sep 2013 - 10:41 AM
franken
franken e2 Member 123136 forum postsfranken vcard Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
28 Sep 2013 - 10:42 AM


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

petebfrance
28 Sep 2013 - 11:11 AM

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

chris.maddock
28 Sep 2013 - 11:19 AM


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
GlennH  91918 forum posts France1 Constructive Critique Points
28 Sep 2013 - 11:28 AM

...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
keithh e2 Member 1023051 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna33 Constructive Critique Points
28 Sep 2013 - 2:27 PM

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
Gundog  1624 forum posts Scotland
28 Sep 2013 - 2:53 PM


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?

.

Last Modified By Gundog at 28 Sep 2013 - 2:55 PM
RichardN00
28 Sep 2013 - 2:57 PM

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
KevSB  101407 forum posts United Kingdom5 Constructive Critique Points
28 Sep 2013 - 3:51 PM

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

Last Modified By KevSB at 28 Sep 2013 - 4:32 PM
lemmy
lemmy  71883 forum posts United Kingdom
28 Sep 2013 - 8:02 PM

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
Gundog  1624 forum posts Scotland
28 Sep 2013 - 9:16 PM


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
GlennH  91918 forum posts France1 Constructive Critique Points
28 Sep 2013 - 9:48 PM

£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
lemmy  71883 forum posts United Kingdom
28 Sep 2013 - 11:24 PM


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
GlennH  91918 forum posts France1 Constructive Critique Points
29 Sep 2013 - 12:17 AM

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.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.