Newspaper stole a photo I own!

[supermonkey]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon. Incident in WA.

Hello forum, long time lurker. I am a photographer and I take my copyrights very seriously. Unfortunately, when you sell online there are always going to be problems like the one I'm having.

Today I discovered that a newspaper had saved a photo from my website and used it on their own website, without my permission...They didn't even bother to try to remove my copyright watermark! They placed the photo on a page with lots of juicy paid advertisements...Back in November I filed a registration application with the US copyright office for this particular photo, but it is still pending. This is not the first time the photo has been stolen, the previous two times I was contacted by the other parties' attorneys who both advised their clients to pay the amount I was demanding for unauthorized use (after I presented the application).

This time seems a bit different. The newspaper is being surprisingly douchebaggy about stealing my photo. They admint they stole it, but they are adamant they violated no laws and they are threatening me with attorneys....I have always handled (and won) cases involving my copyriights on my own..this time I feel like I might need representation.

THey are threatening to sue me...but I cannot figure out what for. All I did was tell them to take my photo off of their site, and demand they pay for its use...It was on their site for about a month.

Am I somehow in the wrong for defending my copyright? Does the fact that my application is still pending make any difference at all? Can they really sue me for standing up for my rights?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Apparently, the key is they have more money and attorneys on retainer.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon. Incident in WA.

Hello forum, long time lurker. I am a photographer and I take my copyrights very seriously. Unfortunately, when you sell online there are always going to be problems like the one I'm having.

Today I discovered that a newspaper had saved a photo from my website and used it on their own website, without my permission...They didn't even bother to try to remove my copyright watermark! They placed the photo on a page with lots of juicy paid advertisements...Back in November I filed a registration application with the US copyright office for this particular photo, but it is still pending. This is not the first time the photo has been stolen, the previous two times I was contacted by the other parties' attorneys who both advised their clients to pay the amount I was demanding for unauthorized use (after I presented the application).

This time seems a bit different. The newspaper is being surprisingly douchebaggy about stealing my photo. They admint they stole it, but they are adamant they violated no laws and they are threatening me with attorneys....I have always handled (and won) cases involving my copyriights on my own..this time I feel like I might need representation.

THey are threatening to sue me...but I cannot figure out what for. All I did was tell them to take my photo off of their site, and demand they pay for its use...It was on their site for about a month.

Am I somehow in the wrong for defending my copyright? Does the fact that my application is still pending make any difference at all? Can they really sue me for standing up for my rights?

I suggest you file a DMCA takedown notice to get your photo removed from its place online and then find an attorney in your area who can help you sort through the facts, many of which seem a bit confused here.

See http://www.copyright.gov for more information.

Good luck.

 

[supermonkey]

Thanks, Quincy...They did take the photo down. There is no dispute that they used it without authorization.

Their view is "we didn't do it on purpose." Which doesn't jive, becuase there's no way it got on their website and off of mine by accident.

I'll just see what their lawyer has to say tomorrow. Mine isn't available to chat tomorrow so I will hear him out, and then state that they can wait to hear from my attorney.

 

[supermonkey]

Looks like this one is heading to court...They admit stealing my photo, but they think they have the right to dictate the dollar amount that crime is worth...and let's just say what they think it's worth isn't enough to fill my gas tank half way.

 

[quincy]

All of what you have described is very odd, supermonkey. Newspapers are not in the habit of stealing photos, nor can I see a newspaper admit to stealing a photo, arguing the price and heading to court over the matter.

Again, I suggest you have an attorney in your area review all of the facts and give you advice based on this personal review.

Good luck.

 

[supermonkey]

I know it's odd.

What happened is their "veteran" sports reporter saw a photo he liked and wanted to use on his blog, which is on the newspaper website, and makes the newspaper money...so he just right clicked it, saved it, and uploaded it to their website.

Then it ended up on a second page on their website, also with lots of juicy ads.

My copyright watermark was on it the whole time, yet they claim to not know.

Quincy, if you're an attorney, or if you're interested, I'd be happy to share the screen caps with you, and the twitter/email messages I got from the company regarding the issue. They absolutely don't deny taking the photograph from my web store and putting it on their website. They're just fairly adamant that they're only going to pay me what they "would normally pay" as if they had asked my permission. That's just not going to happen. They deal with copyright issues every day, they absolutely knew better and knew what they were doing was wrong.

Yesterday they counter offered me $100, which I refused and told them instead that the only way I go away is if they pay my original demand...after all, they stole from me, they don't get to tell me how much that crime is worth, and I've NEVER licensed this photo for this kind of use. Today they come back and basically said "well, thanks, we're sending you $100 the matter is closed as far as we're concerned." Well no, the matter is not closed, and I'm not accepting their check. I can't believe they would be willing to let this go to court, but I'm certainly not afraid to take it there.

 

[quincy]

I know it's odd.

What happened is their "veteran" sports reporter saw a photo he liked and wanted to use on his blog, which is on the newspaper website, and makes the newspaper money...so he just right clicked it, saved it, and uploaded it to their website.

Then it ended up on a second page on their website, also with lots of juicy ads.

My copyright watermark was on it the whole time, yet they claim to not know.

Quincy, if you're an attorney, or if you're interested, I'd be happy to share the screen caps with you, and the twitter/email messages I got from the company regarding the issue. They absolutely don't deny taking the photograph from my web store and putting it on their website. They're just fairly adamant that they're only going to pay me what they "would normally pay" as if they had asked my permission. That's just not going to happen. They deal with copyright issues every day, they absolutely knew better and knew what they were doing was wrong.

Yesterday they counter offered me $100, which I refused and told them instead that the only way I go away is if they pay my original demand...after all, they stole from me, they don't get to tell me how much that crime is worth, and I've NEVER licensed this photo for this kind of use. Today they come back and basically said "well, thanks, we're sending you $100 the matter is closed as far as we're concerned." Well no, the matter is not closed, and I'm not accepting their check. I can't believe they would be willing to let this go to court, but I'm certainly not afraid to take it there.

I am curious, certainly, about the type of newspaper that would involve itself with copyright infringement, but my looking over everything would only be to sate my curiosity and would do you absolutely no good at all.

I think you need to have a personal review of all of the facts by an attorney in your area. It would help for you to have this review prior to a response to any action taken against you by the newspaper (and, like you, I have no idea what cause of action they think they have) or before you decide to take any action against the newspaper.

You might also want to re-read the post by OHRoadwarrior, as his statement is good one to consider carefully.

Good luck.

 

[FlyingRon]

Got to watch those sports reporters. One typed out a piece of drivel for filler one day and never intended it for publication and it got used anyhow resulting in this interesting retraction:


The Miami Herald: “Last Sunday, The Herald erroneously reported that original Dolphin Johnny Holmes had been an insurance salesman in Raleigh, NC, that he had won the New York lottery in 1982 and lost the money in a land swindle, that he had been charged with vehicular homicide but acquitted because his mother said she drove the car, and that he stated that the funniest thing he ever saw was Flipper spouting water on George Wilson. Each of these items was erroneous material published inadvertently. He was not an insurance salesman in Raleigh, did not win the lottery, neither he nor his mother was charged or involved in any way with a vehicular homicide, and he made no comment about Flipper or George Wilson. The Herald regrets the errors.”

 

[quincy]

Haha.

Several organizations compile lists of media errors and the retractions offered. Poynter publishes an annual list. You can find some pretty amusing ones at "Regret the Error."

One of my favorite retractions was over an Abraham Lincoln quote from a speech said to have been given in 1964. The paper not only apologized for the error and published the correct 1864 date, but also included with the correction the "fact" that the speech could not have been given in 1964 because that was the year Lincoln was touring with the Beatles (and a photoshopped photo of Lincoln with the Beatles was published alongside).

Most published errors are rather benign, but some can lead to extremely costly lawsuits filed against the publisher.