HELP! Photo used without permission and pay by company

[DFaltPhoto]

Hey all!

Im seeking advice as I have recently had one of my photos used without my permission or without pay on a large website. The website is WAVE RIDING VEHICLES and the image is used full size on the homepage. It's the picture of the surfer riding a green surfboard. Can't miss it!

I have prepared an image use license agreement and invoice for them but wanted to seek advice from experienced pros out there on these situations. I have recently sold two images to them and received payment and signed agreements for both.

My questions-

What would you charge for this?

How would you go about it?

 

[MOREGONE]

Hi welcome to the forum. Thanks for double posting you firsts post(s).

Here are the cliff notes of the feedback you will get. Get a lawyer.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Ouch man. Better go into the internet archive and see how long they've been using that image and bill them for it. That is their entire website, that image, so I wouldn't be friendly with the price.

And yeah, lawyer up.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well you mentioned you sold images to them previously, before you lawyer up maybe contact them first and work under the assumption that it was an honest mistake.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

i went back and looked, looks like they've only been using it on the home page recently.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Well you mentioned you sold images to them previously, before you lawyer up maybe contact them first and work under the assumption that it was an honest mistake.

Sue first, ask questions later
- Murica

 

[CAP]

They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.


For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.

 

[spacefuzz]

They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.


For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.

um no, thats not how copyright works.

 

[CAP]

They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.


For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.

um no, thats not how copyright works.

I consulted my lawyer on that and taking a screen shot is the same as if i where to take a picture of my laptop screen with your image on it using my camera.

His comment was that once i have captured it is no longer a original and there for not copyrighted.

I wish you where right but not according to my lawyer.

[FONT=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]When you photography a statue or monument, or even a painting at a museum or other [/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]photographers work[/FONT][FONT=helvetica, arial, sans-serif], you are, in fact, creating a derivative work of copyrighted material, which is legal.[/FONT]

 

[robbins.photo]

Well you mentioned you sold images to them previously, before you lawyer up maybe contact them first and work under the assumption that it was an honest mistake.

Sue first, ask questions later
- Murica

Lol.. right.. silly me. Ok, well if were going to do this right we'll need some C-4, various small arms and a rabid weasel.

 

[Tailgunner]

They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.


For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.

um no, thats not how copyright works.

I consulted my lawyer on that and taking a screen shot is the same as if i where to take a picture of my laptop screen with your image on it using my camera.

His comment was that once i have captured it is no longer a original and there for not copyrighted.

I wish you where right but not according to my lawyer.

When you photography a statue or monument, or even a painting at a museum or other photographers work, you are, in fact, creating a derivative work of copyrighted material, which is legal.

Basically your attorney told you nothing can be copyrighted and everything can be legally stolen. I personally would seek better legal advice.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

They might be using a loop hole that i have ran into many times.


For instance if one where to take a screen shot of a copyrighted image using the Print Screen and paste into paint and then upload the image well once you have screen shoted the image you now own it.

um no, thats not how copyright works.

I consulted my lawyer on that and taking a screen shot is the same as if i where to take a picture of my laptop screen with your image on it using my camera.

His comment was that once i have captured it is no longer a original and there for not copyrighted.

I wish you where right but not according to my lawyer.

When you photography a statue or monument, or even a painting at a museum or other photographers work, you are, in fact, creating a derivative work of copyrighted material, which is legal.

Your lawyer needs to brush up on copyright law.

 

[CAP]

Nope, I am with you all on this but its just done not work that way.

“If the photo is in the public domain, you can take a picture of it, you can reproduce it,” said Chris Sprigman, an intellectual property law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who has written on copyright issues for the Freakonomics blog.

The web is a public domain and their fore that statement apply's.


P.S my lawyer is one of my best friends from when we where in college at university of Florida and i called him and he still says that the above apply's in florida any ways.

 

[spacefuzz]

Nope, I am with you all on this but if just done not work that way.

“If the photo is in the public domain, you can take a picture of it, you can reproduce it,” said Chris Sprigman, an intellectual property law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who has written on copyright issues for the Freakonomics blog.

The web is a public domain and their fore that statement apply's.

Still nope. As an example of case law refuting your claim see Sculptor Awarded $685,000 After Photo of Korean War Memorial Used on Stamp

You need to get a better lawyer.

 

[The_Traveler]

You are misunderstanding the meaning of public domain.