Image theft - should I be flattered, or angry?

[Nigel_O]

I enjoy my photography, (although I don't do it as much as I should - I really need to get back out there). I post my decent stuff on Flickr for others to enjoy. On a couple of occasions, people have asked to purchase my images and I've made a few quid.

One of my nicer images (which was a bit of a mission to get due to the weather) was this one:

Lake Vyrnwy straining tower from south shore by Nigel Ogram, on Flickr

I also subscribe to Pixsy and got an alert from them that this image had been used in the very pro-looking Lincolnshire Home & Garden magazine.





If they had asked, I would probably have allowed it for free with accreditation, but the cheeky feckers have nabbed the image and deliberately cloned out my signature.

I'm chuffed that a magazine that is big enough to run a Joanna Lumley article deems my image to be good enough for their magazine, but I'm miffed that they simply thought they could steal it.

Any thoughts?

[GliderRider]

Ask for an acknowledgement in the next issue and remuneration in accordance with their normal terms?

[MitchT]

Invoice them for it at the going rate.

It sickens me that way creative people are expected to give their work away for nothing and just be flattered that someone liked it.

[C5_Steve]

MitchT said:

Invoice them for it at the going rate.

It sickens me that way creative people are expected to give their work away for nothing and just be flattered that someone liked it.

Completely agree with this, some sort of action would be appropriate especially as they printed it. It's not like they found it online and re-tweeted it or something. I'd wager not one of those pics on those pages has been legitimately obtained.

(lovely picture btw!)

[toon10]

I'd be dropping them an email at the very least. Poor form from a professional publication.

My cousin has a side business doing drone photography for businesses. He was contacted about a video of a Sottish Island he shot. Apparently, there was a remote house on the island and the owner got in touch with him and asked if he could use the video for himself. They agreed on a fee. It wasn't mega bucks but enough to make both parties happy.

The publication should be giving you something for the image or at the very least, a mention so that you get some advertising out of it.

[Disastrous]

As above.

I’d even be tempted to Image search the other photos and then contact their Copyright holders and combine forces.

Cheeky fkers.

[bigandclever]

In case you haven't found it. e-version here .. https://issuu.com/woodhallmedia/docs/woodhall-mag-...

Contact details are on page 3.

[kevinon]

I'd say ANGRY.
Then when they fess up and compensate you, FLATTERED

[LimmerickLad]

Bit naughty to say the least..excellent pic BTW.

[boyse7en]

I think you are entitled to feel angry about it, but it really comes down to how far you want to go and how much time you want to spend on it.

I'd be inclined to write a firm but polite letter and including an invoice, but they may well ignore it.

As the going rate for licensing a photograph is £5-50 depending on what it is of, only you can decide if it worth your efforts.

[Nigel_O]

Thanks everyone

The money isn't the issue - I never expected to make a penny from photography, so anything I get is just a nice little bonus. I suspect I'm more like

The issue is the bare-faced cheek. I did consider contacting the publishing company to challenge them. However, Pixsy built the algoriths that identified the theft, so I've instructed them to make a claim - after all, this is their revenue model and without them I wouldn't even be aware that the image had been stolen.

I also found the publishing company boasts that they send out 37,500 hard copies per issue, so it's not just some online-only mag.

I'll keep you posted

[abzmike]

If they are nicking your pictures there is every chance they are nicking plenty of others. Presumably they are selling advertising or subscriptions and making money from the work of others - not right at all.

[untakenname]

Not on imo, similar happens quite often with code.

boyse7en said:

As the going rate for licensing a photograph is £5-50 depending on what it is of, only you can decide if it worth your efforts.

Unless you've already uploaded your photograph to a stock website and agreed on the price then it's whatever you want it to be.

[StevieBee]

You tend to catch more wasps with honey than you do a swat. My advice would be to go in soft (at first). It’s highly probable that the publisher subbed out the design to Graphic Design company or was done by a junior designer not fully familiar with the rules and conventions around image use (yeah, I know they should know but...). Flag it up and gauge their response. You never know, you may even get a commission out of it.

untakenname said:

boyse7en said:

As the going rate for licensing a photograph is £5-50 depending on what it is of, only you can decide if it worth your efforts.

Unless you've already uploaded your photograph to a stock website and agreed on the price then it's whatever you want it to be.

There is no such thing as ‘the going rate’. The rate is whatever the photographer wishes to charge and that’s likely to be influenced by where the image will be used, by whom and for what purpose.

Nigel_O said:

I'm chuffed that a magazine that is big enough to run a Joanna Lumley article deems my image to be good enough for their magazine, but I'm miffed that they simply thought they could steal it.

I don’t wish to burst your bubble but many of the celebrity interviews that appear in regional titles are syndicated, often ghost written (with the celebrities permission and review) and adapted depending on the region it’s being used. You’ll likely find the same interview in a similar magazine in Yorkshire or Devon with the regional context changed.

[Simpo Two]

Nigel_O said:

I also found the publishing company boasts that they send out 37,500 hard copies per issue, so it's not just some online-only mag.

I'll keep you posted

It's theft, pure and simple, no different from stealing your TV. Somebody must have thought 'I'll nick that, he'll never know' - very silly.

I would put this on SPL for a more legal route forward.

I recall a 'rate card' for using photos but can't remember who issued it. I would want that sum, and a big apology. How you get it is the thing to work on...

[Derek Smith]

It's a great picture, one to be proud of. What it is not is theft.

The publishing company may well have had the article sent to them, or bought by them. There is the chance that it was sourced in house. Whatever, the restrictions of copyright are well known by most commercial publications, and for those not aware, it is your duty to educate them.

You have sold images previously - well done by the way - so have a ballpark figure to refer them to. You can always add a percentage for the effort you have been obliged to expend.

That your image has been used is a form of valid praise. Enjoy that side of things. It is also a declaration of its quality. If they try to suggest it is worth little, point out that they chose it to illustrate (one of) their main article.

I found an image online that I wanted to use in a book. I phoned the company on whose website it was and they provided me with a hires copy free of charge. People are mostly generous if you ask. People are mostly belligerent if someone takes advantage of them. In this case, be the latter.

[dudleybloke]

I would charge them £1 per copy for taking the piss.

[slopes]

Derek Smith said:

It's a great picture, one to be proud of. What it is not is theft.

Isn't it theft of intellectual property as it has his signature on it? A bit like if you design something whilst employed by a company, then leave and take the design with you, in theory that is theft of their intellectual property - at least that is how my contract states it anyway.

I think in the OP's case, it is more the fact they removed his signature that is bothering him than the fact they used his picture.

[kestral]

GliderRider said:

Ask for an acknowledgement in the next issue and remuneration in accordance with their normal terms?

No.
Their normal terms are they don't pay for photos.

[kestral]

Neithe angry or flattered.

Happy.

When people publish my photos without authorisation and payment I just send them the bill and they pay it.

The people publishing are liable to the copyright holder.

It's simpply a case of a letter to them asking for payment. £125 for that pic in that mag.