Photograph used without permission 0

[Lobstrosity]

Hi all, I'm curious to gather some opinions.

A photo that I took of one of the pieces in my collection was used on an episode of a Netflix TV series. It was used prominently, as a static image, filling the screen.

Clearly, I don't own the copyright to the content, but of course, I do own the copyright to the image that I took. The image is watermarked, but they zoomed in enough so as to exclude the watermark. There is no doubt that it is my image, and it was pulled from CAF.

On the one hand, I think it's great that they used the image, as (I believe) it will add to the desirability of my piece. On the other hand, it would have been great to be contacted, asked, acknowledged, and paid.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by Lobstrosity

[John E.]

Can you get a lawyer (#4) to do #3? 
 

I would talk to my lawyer and get his or her overall opinion on the matter. They may say it’s not worth pursuing. 

[Lorne.T]

Double check, but you may be able to register your image now and still be able to claim a large amount from them.

https://petapixel.com/2015/08/05/how-to-officially-register-your-photographs-with-the-us-copyright-office/

You can register up to 750 pictures for the same payment so it may be worth having for the future. If registered it means you can get way more if you use a lawyer.

 

If you can't be arsed doing that, you could drop Pixsy a line, and they might be able to do it for you, though you'd get way less if not registered, and they'd take half the money.

https://www.pixsy.com

I work as a photographer, shooting music events, mostly for Getty Images (so currently unemployed!) and make sure I always get paid for my work, if unauthorised use takes place, unless it's just some kid putting it on a blog.

http://www.lornethomson.com

Yeah, it's a great feeling seeing a picture of yours on TV, but they used it without your permission, and it's a very large company, so they certainly had the budget to pay you. 

[Rick2you2]

I think you have 3 months from creation of the image to register it and still collect statutory damages, but the statutory damages are small for this sort of thing (at least IMO). You may want to instead tell them you own the image and want it removed.

Personally, I would ignore the violation and claim bragging rights on CAF that it was used.

[Xela]

What series is it?

[ESeffinga]

Without specific details it’s hard to say exactly the right course.

There is a somewhat tangentially related lawsuit out there in the world, between some street artists and Mercedes, last I read.

I say tangentially because in that case Mercedes is claiming that since they took theit photo from a public street, the art in the photo is essentially theirs to use. The artists claim is that Mercedes was clearly using their art in the background to add street creed in their ad campaign, and that they were neither consulted or paid.
 

I bring it up because if you were to claim ownership of the photo, the actual artist/publisher could claim ultimate ownership of the image. Your taking of the photo wouldn’t hold a lot of water. 

Personally, I’m with R2Y on this one. Let it be, and crow about it on CAF in the description. You’ll get a lot more good out of it than chasing Netflix down a legal rabbit hole. And you might not like where it goes. 
 

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by ESeffinga

[wurstisart]

I mean all these picture companies go after the little guys for exactly what this topic is about.

Using an image without permission.

This can cost thousands of dollars.
 

But unless we don’t know what image it was, whether it showed a trademark character that is again owned by someone else....we can’t really give a good advice.

[Twanj]

Let's see the usage.

They owe you for it. This isn't some student film.

 

I had a photo used by Guinness Book of World Records. I would have been happy with a photo credit or copy of the book.

I contacted a lawyer who was well known for this & he said it wasn't worth even sending a letter if I hadn't registered the copyright (mentioned in @Lorne.T's post).

[AJD]

Back in the 1950s EC comics used a couple of Ray Bradbury's story ideas without credit or royalty. When he recognised them he wrote to Bill Gaines and said he was pleased to see them use it and wondered when the check would arrive. Gaines sent him a check and they ended up doing a lot of Bradbury's stories, with the author's input. Neat story.

Based on that I voted for (3). I reckon there's a chance they'd pay you to avoid (4). (But register the image first and quote the relevant number/whatever.)

[peakerjer]

You need to take the word "or" out of option #3. You should get credit AND payment.

I'm a photojournalist who has been making living as a full time newspaper photographer for 30 years. I literally have tens of thousands bylines (photo credits). If I took everyone of those credits to the grocery store I couldn't use them to buy a pack of gum. YOU NEED TO GET PAID.

If they refuse #3 then move on to #4

 

[ESeffinga]

It’s different if you are taking a composed photo. That is of your own making. It’s a different thing to take a shot of someone’s art, and then hold your hand out to get paid. 
 

In general at least. They didn’t use his photo because he took it, or how artfully it was shot.  They used the photo because of what it was of. If someone owes anyone, they owe the artist/publisher, depending on who’s work it actually is.

Edited April 11, 2020 by ESeffinga

[Rick2you2]

3 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Without specific details it’s hard to say exactly the right course.

There is a somewhat tangentially related lawsuit out there in the world, between some street artists and Mercedes, last I read.

I say tangentially because in that case Mercedes is claiming that since they took theit photo from a public street, the art in the photo is essentially theirs to use. The artists claim is that Mercedes was clearly using their art in the background to add street creed in their ad campaign, and that they were neither consulted or paid.
 

I bring it up because if you were to claim ownership of the photo, the actual artist/publisher could claim ultimate ownership of the image. Your taking of the photo wouldn’t hold a lot of water. 

Personally, I’m with R2Y on this one. Let it be, and crow about it on CAF in the description. You’ll get a lot more good out of it than chasing Netflix down a legal rabbit hole. And you might not like where it goes. 
 

 

I don’t know the Mercedes decision, but it may involve the different question of the right of privacy. Generally speaking, it is not the appropriation of someone’s image if the photo image is taken in public. Doing it through someone’s window is a different matter. But, copying someone else’s photo can be a copyright violation. Money aside, there is also a question of whether posting it on a public website was “fair use” under the circumstances. 

[Chaz G.]

2 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

 . . . there is also a question of whether posting it on a public website was “fair use” under the circumstances. 

Agreed. You should check with CAF as to what their rules are regarding photos posted on their site.

[jsilverjanet]

I'd contact an attorney. 

[PhilipB2k17]

It’s likely that the attorney would cost you more than the compensation you’re owed. 

[newshane]

People who violate ethics on intellectual property should be taught the harshest available lesson. 

Lots of people who would never steal  garden tool left on a front lawn wouldn't think twice about stealing someone else's photograph, music, artwork, or poetry. 

Have you contacted the offender directly? I'd ask for credit. If they refused, I might be inclined to step up my game a bit. 

[newshane]

I had this happen to me back when I was a newspaper reporter. 

The local TV stations put their cameras on the newspaper to capture the award-winning image I took (I was the only media on the scene). 

Technically, the newspaper owned my image, so there was nothing I could do but fume at the lack of credit. My publisher didn't give a  because they credited the NEWSPAPER. 

I have a friend who is a professional photographer, and he deals with this sort of stuff all the time. It's insane how people treat intellectual or artistic property. 

[PhilipB2k17]

I’d write the producer of the video in question a friendly letter stating that you were excited to see a scan you took of your art on their program, and just assumed that it was an oversight on their part that it was not attributed to you, and that you did not receive any compensation for its use. 
 

Then suggest a $500 payment and attribution in all future broadcasts, or something. 
 

They’ll get the point. 

Edited April 11, 2020 by PhilipB2k17

[JadeGiant]

Not sure what I would do but I would not be inclined to take legal action. I would reach out and assume an oversight and let them know that you were the photographer. I would also seek to credit the artist of the piece. You both should be credited. Not sure about compensation, I would have no clue how that should go. 

 

Most importantly, which piece is it and what is the Netflix series and episode so we can go view it?

[Spider-Variant]

May be hard to argue any kind of damages, since you state you think it increases the "desirability of my piece".

Was it cool they did that?  No.

Are you out any money or have been impacted negatively?  I don't see it.

I'd go with Option B above and see if/what they respond.