Is this kosher ?

[frayne]

A few years ago I was asked to take some photos of the neighborhood for the HOA website. Today I get a flyer in the mail from a real estate company that has my photos plaster all over the front of the flyer. Neither I or the HOA was asked permission to use the photos.

I few of my photog friends said this is absolutely illegal and that I should send an invoice to the real estate company.

Although I am an amateur photographer I have done some paid works in the past, if that makes any difference.

Your thoughts ?

 

[cooch96]

Absolutely send an invoice. If they refuse to pay, your next recourse is either small claims court or you can threaten to negatively, and factually, review them on Yelp.

I think in the long run, you're helping them by keeping that realtor honest and reminding them of professional courtesy, civility, and the law.

A little off topic, but I have a friend who goes through this all the time. Sounds like the magazine industry really tries to exploit professional photographers by using submitted samples without permission or notification and ignoring subsequent invoices.

 

[Senator]

Contact the broker of the RE company. If they are reputable, they will chastise the agent and not use them any more.

It was likely a young agent, looking for business with the flyer. It was a violation of copyright law.

I doubt you will get paid, but maybe you will get $100 or so as a good faith measure.

 

[latexman]

Were your photos copyright protected?

 

[frayne]

Were your photos copyright protected?

Yes.

 

[folivier]

Do some reading on copyright violations on photography forums and blogs. There are ways to cause them major problems if they don't offer you just payment.
Hopefully the photo files they used will still have the exif info showing your camera.

 

[Bestwifeever]

Defintely pursue it.

 

[Totoro]

Whether you are professional or amateur, copyright rests with the creator unless (s)he transferred rights. You clearly didn't.

So it's not kosher.

 

[eytonxav]

Were your photos copyright protected?

I do not believe the photos need copyright watermarks to be protected.

 

[Walt34]

What matters is whether the photos were registered at the U.S. Copyright office. Unless the photographer signs away his rights copyright automatically belongs to the person who pressed the shutter button. That's very nice, but without registration enforcement is all but useless. Given the timelines it may not be too late but get the photos registered. Today (well, Monday anyway) and you may have a case.

This video is long at 1:15 but covers the subject well. I also have their book on my bookshelf.

 

[athena53]

A little off topic, but I have a friend who goes through this all the time. Sounds like the magazine industry really tries to exploit professional photographers by using submitted samples without permission or notification and ignoring subsequent invoices.

A friend in NJ was taken aback when a newspaper article about a promotion at her job was accompanied by her FaceBook profile picture. She hadn't offered it- they just tracked it down and used it.

Definitely say something- people need to know that just because a photo was available to them it wasn't meant to be used elsewhere without permission.

 

[Bestwifeever]

The fact that the OP's photos were "published" several years ago on the HOA website certainly bolsters the ownership, although doubtful the agent would claim he/she owns them. Write a cordial letter to the agent with your suggestion of how to make it right and copy the agency owner. Don't mention the lack of registration with the (c) office, and if that comes up point out that it us just a formality (unlikely the agent is familiar with current copyright laws anyway).

 

[W2R]

My thoughts on this differ from everyone else's thoughts.

Basically, you regard yourself as mostly an amateur. You weren't paid for the photos.

So somebody took an amateur's photos from the internet, big deal (IMO). Like THAT never happens, right? What I would do, if you care at all, is to get them to mention in small print that you are the photographer. I wouldn't try to get money for them, because really as an amateur photographer you did not incur a loss. Maybe legally, but not in my version of the real world.

It looks like I am the only one who thinks this, so probably you should ignore all of the above.

 

[frayne]

My thoughts on this differ from everyone else's thoughts.

Basically, you regard yourself as mostly an amateur. You weren't paid for the photos.

So somebody took an amateur's photos from the internet, big deal (IMO). Like THAT never happens, right? What I would do, if you care at all, is to get them to mention in small print that you are the photographer. I wouldn't try to get money for them, because really as an amateur photographer you did not incur a loss. Maybe legally, but not in my version of the real world.

It looks like I am the only one who thinks this, so probably you should ignore all of the above.

I pretty much agree with you as I'm not after the money at all but do enjoy being a bit ornery at times. My first thought is to invoice them for $250 per photo, totaling $1000 and then if they contact me and want to negotiate just tell them to make a $500 donation to the HOA. It is a national real estate firm which should know better in the first place.

 

[CaliKid]

I am clearly in the minority here but I would probably ignore and move on. It is a compliment to your photos, has no bearing on you whatsoever and so what's the big deal!? I would ignore. Life is too short to worry about every "injustice" that happens to us.

 

[Texas Proud]

I pretty much agree with you as I'm not after the money at all but do enjoy being a bit ornery at times. My first thought is to invoice them for $250 per photo, totaling $1000 and then if they contact me and want to negotiate just tell them to make a $500 donation to the HOA. It is a national real estate firm which should know better in the first place.

I bet that the firm who published this is a locally owned entity.... it would be a franchise of the national RE firm...

 

[Aerides]

make a stink. Far too many ppl think "oh it's on the internet it's free" and steal artists works all the time. if nothing else you'll teach this offender that they need to AT LEAST ask for permission in the future.

 

[youbet]

Your thoughts ?

Be prepared to document and substantiate your losses due to this unauthorized use of your pics. Otherwise, after you pay your legal team to adjudicate this infringement, all you'll receive is the satisfaction of having them ordered to cease using the pics.

While I sympathize with your displeasure at finding your snapshots being used to promote your neighborhood without your permission, if I was the real estate company, I wouldn't pay you a nickle until, and if, a judge ordered me to do so.

BTW, was your work clearly identified as yours on the HOA web site so the real estate company could have contacted you for permission?

 

[RobbieB]

Send them a bill for whatever the HOA paid you.

 

[redduck]

make a stink...if nothing else you'll teach this offender that they need to AT LEAST ask for permission in the future.

And just how would you propose to: "make a stink...teach this offender that they need to AT LEAST ask for permission in the future"?

 

[Bestwifeever]

And just how would you propose to: "make a stink...teach this offender that they need to AT LEAST ask for permission in the future"?

Someone above (oh wait, me) suggested a cordial letter to the agent outlining whatever remedy the OP felt was appropriate (I didn't say $$). That would be a start.

 

[robertf57]

Well, I am not an attorney, but....

Seems to be a bit of mis-information in this thread. A copyright is the protection provided to original works of authorship and a copy right exists when a work is created, whether the right is registered with the copyright office or not. The fact that an authored work is available to be viewed doesn't negate the copyright.

I would pursue this. You don't have to prove any damages other than your property was stolen, which it was. Too many artist are ripped off because it is easy

 

[frayne]

When I first made this post on a photography forum, almost to a person, people suggested that I pursue this, not for myself but for the professional photography community. They see this activity as an on going problem and are quite frustrated over the blatant disregard for their work. I can and do understand where they are coming from.

 

[eytonxav]

Seems to be a bit of mis-information in this thread. A copyright is the protection provided to original works of authorship and a copy right exists when a work is created, whether the right is registered with the copyright office or not. The fact that an authored work is available to be viewed doesn't negate the copyright.

I agree with your comment, however, if the remedy requires a law suit, isn't registration a prerequisite? I am not advocating that the OP bother to pursue this or not, that has to be his decision, although I tend to agree with what W2R said.

 

[Walt34]

I agree with your comment, however, if the remedy requires a law suit, isn't registration a prerequisite?

Here is where it gets a bit complicated and why there is so much misinformation "out there". Frayne does own the copyright and he can sue for actual damages only, since the photos (I assume) were not registered at the copyright office. Since (presumably) he's never made a nickle providing photography services, proving actual damages would be almost impossible. Net result? Don't bother. Maybe send a letter but don't expect much to happen.

However, if he had registered the photos, he would now have them by the short hairs, and their attorney, once he learned of the details of the law, would be making a very generous offer quickly. The issue then becomes not whether they are going to pay damages but how much. And they're also probably on the hook for frayne's attorney's fees, who would be frothing at the mouth to take this case for him.