Photograph used without permission 0

[Lorne.T]

People just asking for a credit. A credit should always be given.  This is unauthorised use.

 

2 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

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.

That doesn't matter. They needed the picture. They chose his picture over all the others out there, if there are any of the same shot. He deserves payment. 

Edited April 11, 2020 by Lorne.T

[Transplant]

I would yell @comix4fun 3 times in the mirror.  

[Rick2you2]

Instead of focusing on the image, focus on the deliberate omission of the watermark. That disclosed your ownership of the photo, and the omission of it was an unauthorized misuse of what you owned by altering the photo. As such, I think you have the right to insist your ownership of the photo be acknowledged. That won’t get you damages, but it should get you at least an apology and correction.

[Michael (OML)1]

I would probably go with the "bees and honey" and send a kind note telling them you were quite pleased to see your photo but that you didn't recall any permission and that you will and do hereby grant full permission provided they simply write you a thank you note for use of the photo.  That way, you get a cool story and a thank you from a wonderful company.  

[ESeffinga]

1 hour ago, Lorne.T said:

People just asking for a credit. A credit should always be given.  This is unauthorised use.

 

That doesn't matter. They needed the picture. They chose his picture over all the others out there, if there are any of the same shot. He deserves payment. 

Actually it does, as he was (presumably) in essence making a copy for something he does not own the copyright to. i.e. the artwork in question. So technically, he made an illegal copy, and they pilfered it.

Personally, I think this is a legal Ouroboros, and as I said before, be careful of what you wish for. 
 

I always find it fascinating when people that buy a piece of work feel that they are somehow entitled to ownership beyond just that of the physical object, which I imagine is all that was purchased here.

Did Netflix do a shady thing? For sure. Should they be reprimanded? Yeah, why not. Easiest thing would be court of public opinion. Post what they did on social media, and let them reap what they’ve seen. Chopping off the OPs watermark is a jerk move.

That said, I can’t repeat this strongly enough. Taking what I presume was a picture of a piece of work with no indication of the photographer’s involvement, and only showing the work of the actual artist, with a ghosted name added in the margin is at best a copy of that artist’s work.

I don’t get to throw the page on a xerox machine, and then claim the xerox is my art, then copy that in perpetuity to make comics simply because I pushed the copy button. 

If I was to sign that xerox, and then claim authorship of the work, the folks on this board would have me up on a pike for being a fraudster. But then that’s what folks are digitally instigating here right? The OP should claim the image as his because he scanned it?

If the photo in question is of the OPs home, with art framed on a wall, then that is one thing. If it’s in a portfolio, or something else about it is more than a mere copy of the original, also something else. Simply making the original art digital, via camera vs scanner isn’t going to be sufficient grounds for it to be transformative, and thus the work of the OP, any more than my hitting the button on the copier would be. 
 

Even Richard Prince at least enlarged the Instagram posts before putting them on the gallery wall. He had a (horrible) argument of saying the work was transformative. 

As I understand it, the aggrieved party here, if there is one, should be the artist/publisher. Were I them, I’d seek to find out how my art came to be used inappropriately. I’d start with Netflix and work backward from there.

If I was the OP, If anything, I’d at least hesitate a bit before kicking that particular nest.

I’m no lawyer, but as somone who follows IP rights as closely as I am able for work reasons, and an over abundance of interest as an art fan, and amateur art law “fan”, I don’t see where the OP did anything but put his watermark over the artist’s work. Is that enough “transformative” in the digital age? 

Hell if I know. But I don’t think so.
 

Honestly, maybe I’m totally wrong, but I personally never would think it was mine to claim damages for. If anything, I’d be more fired up about the actual artists being compensated, rather than thinking of myself.

Reminds me of the guy that was thinking about suing for damages cause a piece of art he paid for was used for a print. 
Don’t care if it was commissioned, unless he had unique narrative input, which he didn’t. Just a series of other people’s IP and other artists’ actual artwork, that was then copied by an unscrupulous dealer.

Did the situation stink? For sure. Did the OP of that thread have real claim for damages? Not in my mind. Or here either.

A lot of folks think because they bought a physical work, they are involved in other avenues of ownership, and that just boggles my mind.

Such as it is.

-e.

[jokiing]

Could we get better information as to what the image is? Is it a three dimension piece or flat artwork? Is it a one of a kind original or a published piece?

[grapeape]

15 hours ago, Lobstrosity said:

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?

 

Take it as a badge of honor.

Then, Contact Netflix and let them know they should not have used the image without your permission.

Tell them if they finance a documentary on original comic art giving you a producers credit and a 5% residual, you and your CAF buddies will share a few pieces of their collections and our interesting stories.

The segment on me can be called Grapeape Ape King: Mike Exotic

 

[grapeape]

2 hours ago, Transplant said:

I would yell @comix4fun 3 times in the mirror.  

It works but I warn you there’s no putting that genie back in the bottle.

[Will_K]

Not sure if the question has been asked...  Did Netflix give any credit/acknowledgement to the piece that was featured ??  Not the SOURCE of the image.  But did Netflix credit the copyright holders of the character?

Like XXX is copyright XXX.  XXX was drawn by XXX.   Image of XXX was published in XXX by XXX.

And yeah, can you provide a link to your image ?

 

[joefixit2]

3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Instead of focusing on the image, focus on the deliberate omission of the watermark. That disclosed your ownership of the photo, and the omission of it was an unauthorized misuse of what you owned by altering the photo. As such, I think you have the right to insist your ownership of the photo be acknowledged. That won’t get you damages, but it should get you at least an apology and correction.

I think this is the biggest point.  You had it marked and they deliberately cropped around it so they knowingly saw the mark and decided to ignore reaching out or doing the right thing.  How do you react?  Not sure but I would agree that the bees and honey is probably the best route but make sure to note that the purposely do out your watermark and see what they come back with.

[Bird]

I agree that working around the watermark is worth mentioning and goes to intent to use without permission and/or credit and is a major point in all this.

[JadeGiant]

And I can't help but keep coming back to the artist and license holder being credited. This is far more of an important omission than the watermarked photo IMHO

[Varanis]

Now I'm left wondering if there's a Netflix series about OA I missed somehow...

Curious to know how the image was used. I think context would matter a lot for me personally.

[delekkerste]

11 minutes ago, Varanis said:

Now I'm left wondering if there's a Netflix series about OA I missed somehow...

Curious to know how the image was used. I think context would matter a lot for me personally.

Yeah, seriously, somebody just let us know already. 

[Michael Browning]

Wouldn't it be nice if the original poster let us know what the image was and what the show was -- or at least reply to his own thread?

[Rick2you2]

5 hours ago, JadeGiant said:

And I can't help but keep coming back to the artist and license holder being credited. This is far more of an important omission than the watermarked photo IMHO

Don’t lose sight of the fact that in the absence of registration, the infringer is only liable for the actual damages caused. For the original artist, there is no loss since the art was sold. Same is true of the photo owner, but asking for attribution is not asking for “damages”. The original artist might have that same right if requested.
 

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by Rick2you2

[Lobstrosity]

Thanks everyone for all the feedback! It's exactly what I was looking for - some varying points of view to mull over. I'll answer some of the questions that I've received...

[Lobstrosity]

17 hours ago, Xela said:

What series is it?

The series is "The Toys That Made Us". I'll grab a screenshot and post it shortly

[Lobstrosity]

12 hours ago, newshane said:

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. 

I haven't taken any action yet, was just curious what the community thought

[Lobstrosity]

12 hours ago, JadeGiant said:

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?

The piece is a cel setup and background from "My Little Pony", from the "The Toys That Made Us" (season 3 episode 3). Here's the setup: 

Edited April 12, 2020 by Lobstrosity