Thanks for all the comments and advice.I will do a screen grab,but how solid will that be as evidence? I like the idea of saving the code for the photo on their site.

As for Flickr having any rights to peoples images ,I'm not sure so thats one thing I definitely need to check.I know Deviant Art have something in their small print about them being able to use any of your images however they want.Thats why I left the site.

Looks like I have the choice of either accepting a token few quid apology or spending time and money to get some real compensation.

HHmmm...

Part of me would really like to do the latter! It's a principal thing.It's just the way they can go round blatantly stealing photos from where they want and think they can get away with it.

1

quoting post from MattMiller:

---

Way to go to misrepresent what i said ... At no time did i suggest it was "worth" £20 ... the picture is almost certainly worth considerably more however from experience amounts like this for images used on the "internet" get paid immediately and without fuss, £20 it represents a recognition and a reminder that they cant steal pictures because they will get caught ... sure you may be able to get £100, £200 or even more for the picture but if you will need the time, money and inclination to possibly take six months of unanswered emails, letters from solicitors, denials and "go screw yourself" messages, is it actually going to be worth it? ...

I'm all for standing for principles and getting what I'm owed, but there is a scale issue here, is the effort involved worth the payout? ... especially when in spite of all the effort you might get nothing at all (unless you actually want to go to court) ... The only people that win if you escalate to a full fee plus unorthorised usage fee will be your local solicitor.

---

Matt you are not the only one operating on the £20.00 theory, unfortunately this is what the thieves rely on, they take a chance and if they are caught, well it's only £20.00, in fact that size of fee costs more to process than to pay. Hit them with an NUJ fee and again it's very small, less than a half day chargeout rate for most, but they may think about it before stealing images.

Hit them with a massive invoice and if you win the case since undoubtedly it will go to court, then not only will you get loads of dosh, but the thieves will think very seriously about it especially if the AOP and NUJ get wind of it as their members will be hunting through stuff since if they have done it once there's a good chance they've done it before.

Laurence J. Power

Copyright infringement isn't theft...don't get carried away.

I would suggest a token sum plus recognition...or more if not given credit. Do you really fancy your chances against a multi million pound organization?

Now this guy got done REALLY bad!!!!!!

Makes my problem seem just like a drop in the ocean.


This is awesome......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5lEMIf7_FM&feature=youtu.be

quoting post from anthonyh:

---

Copyright infringement isn't theft...don't get carried away.

I would suggest a token sum plus recognition...or more if not given credit. Do you really fancy your chances against a multi million pound organization?

---

It's theft of the originator's idea.

"A token amount plus recognition", means you are condoning their action. They will know they have commited a criminal offence as per the act, they need to be stopped.

How would you like it if somebody decided that they really did not need the money, but liked to keep themselves occupied, so they offered their services to your employer and took your job. You could end up on the dole. Basically there are enough photographers going bust because fees are too low. Competing on price is great, but everyone needs to make a living wage, allowing companies to steal images and get away with it makes a living wage even less likely for anyone. No I am not suggesting going for a massive invoice, firstly because a court case would be inevitable and secondly because without a history of selling images for a high price I am not sure that the money would be obtained, hence my suggestion of NUJ rates doubled as per convention for copyright infringement.

Laurence J. Power

quoting post from anthonyh:

---

Copyright infringement isn't theft...don't get carried away.

I would suggest a token sum plus recognition...or more if not given credit. Do you really fancy your chances against a multi million pound organization?

---

The chances are pretty good, to quote the UK copyright service
"copyright law is principally civil not criminal law. Civil law requires a lower burden of proof, actually making it easier to prove infringement.

In a criminal case, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. However, in a civil case, the plaintiff must simply convince the court or tribunal that their claim is valid, and that on balance of probability it is likely that the defendant is guilty."

more useful info here http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others

Most multi million pound organisations are smart enough to work out when they can't win.

quoting post from anthonyh:

---

Copyright infringement isn't theft...don't get carried away.

I would suggest a token sum plus recognition...or more if not given credit. Do you really fancy your chances against a multi million pound organization?

---

why not? ive taken one on and won, its persistence rather then anything the little guy can win. Its knowing your in the right and you can

www.chilliphotography.co.uk

In the end depends how much time and effort you are willing to devote to it. I think the fellow in this link felt it was worth the effort. Of course he has the advantage of it being his living. That does mean he can show what others paid for his images.

Link: £27,000 for an evenings work

I take it you have set the License on Flickr, as they have 7 types of copyright licenses
(the default is anyone can use anything)

these are the 7 copyright licenses they offer
1) None (All rights reserved)
2) Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons
3) Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons
4) Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons
5) Attribution Creative Commons
6) Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons
7) Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons


also not sure if this has anything to do with it but Flickr runs in conjunction with Getty Images

quoting post from  LJP:

---

Matt you are not the only one operating on the £20.00 theory, unfortunately this is what the thieves rely on, they take a chance and if they are caught, well it's only £20.00, in fact that size of fee costs more to process than to pay. Hit them with an NUJ fee and again it's very small, less than a half day chargeout rate for most, but they may think about it before stealing images.

Hit them with a massive invoice and if you win the case since undoubtedly it will go to court, then not only will you get loads of dosh, but the thieves will think very seriously about it especially if the AOP and NUJ get wind of it as their members will be hunting through stuff since if they have done it once there's a good chance they've done it before.

Laurence J. Power

---

Its NOT a theory ... My comments come from experience, my pictures get stolen regularly enough ... I have hit enough brick walls to know when i can get a payday from a picture and when I can get a token ...

Your advice is sound if Petesky wants to invest time effort and money in the hunt and actually take it all the way to court ... the word "will" is a bit misleading though, despite the law, rights and even principles there are never guarantees ...
Do you have some examples of when you have hit a payday from a "massive invoice" for a relatively small web image? ... I have only succeeded in doing that with images in print ...

This has happened to me in fact i asked if i could put my images on dancesportinfo.net and i mentioned this. They said that i was not telling them anything that they didn't already know and that it was simply something that they had to live with. Really the law should be made stringer

Matt, If you read my entry again you will note my comment regarding a massive invoice and the point of winning the case "and if you win the case"

Laurence J. Power

quoting post from  LJP:

---

Matt, If you read my entry again you will note my comment regarding a massive invoice and the point of winning the case "and if you win the case"

Laurence J. Power

---

No I get your point about "if" you win ... indeed that is enough to rest my case ... my point with the "will" is related to getting "loads of dosh", They may well decide in court the figure invoiced is unreasonable ... keep in mind that similar images (size and content) on Istock with a standard license for unlimited web use on a single site is around a fiver ... even if you get double that because of the unauthorised usage a tenner is not much to show for all the time and effort involved in pursuing the issue especially when you can easily get twice that without question by return of post.

quoting post from TregonningPhotos:

---

I take it you have set the License on Flickr, as they have 7 types of copyright licenses
(the default is anyone can use anything)

these are the 7 copyright licenses they offer
1) None (All rights reserved)
2) Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons
3) Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons
4) Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons
5) Attribution Creative Commons
6) Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons
7) Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons


also not sure if this has anything to do with it but Flickr runs in conjunction with Getty Images

---

I can't remember what License I set (or if i did) when I uploaded my photos to Flickr but after checking a few of them(Particularly the photo in question) they are all set to 'all rights reserved' which means no one can use them.So at least that's one thing in my favour :-)

quoting post from MattMiller:

---

No I get your point about "if" you win ... indeed that is enough to rest my case ... my point with the "will" is related to getting "loads of dosh", They may well decide in court the figure invoiced is unreasonable ... keep in mind that similar images (size and content) on Istock with a standard license for unlimited web use on a single site is around a fiver ... even if you get double that because of the unauthorised usage a tenner is not much to show for all the time and effort involved in pursuing the issue especially when you can easily get twice that without question by return of post.

---

Matt,

Thus the comment re using NUJ rates rather than an extortionate fee, and the double fee is I understand a recognised increase used.

The company could indeed have used a microstock image. In fact a microstock image may well have suited them better, but they chose not to. I maintain my position that using NUJ rates doubled is fair and reasonable. The company might possibly attempt to negotiate the figure down to NUJ rates, it is then up to the photographer to decide whether to accept the offer.

Laurence J. Power

I'm sure a lot of folk are following this with interest and ask Petesky if he would be kind enough to tell us the progress and final outcome.



Look to camera, smile and sparkle. That's ace, Ace baby!

I've learnt alot from all the different answers. My photos on Flickr are not allowed to be used by anyone.I've done a screen grab. Didn't have an option to 'inspect' element' when I right clicked the photo(Anyone know how?) so all I could do was save the properties.Not sure how effective that is.

I haven't contacted the site yet...not till I have more ammunition and knowledge.

To be honest, with the great spectrum of conflicting replies I've read, I'm still unsure what to do.

I'm off to CAB tomorrow to see if they can give me more information about my legal rights and whether it's really worth persuing. And I will see if I can order a brochure to see if it's in print.

Thanks to everyone for your input so far...:-)

quoting post from Daisey:

---

This company are part of the Olympicholidays.com brand

You can order a brochure from them. Might be worth doing to see if you are in print ?

---

I've just looked and it's on Olympicholidays.com site too :-)

quoting post from Petesky:

---

I've just looked and it's on Olympicholidays.com site too :-)

---

Keep going, I found about 4 sites which could reasonably use your image. Of course based on Alan_T's comment it could be on all of them!

If you screen dump onto paper and add the date and time of the dump I am sure that a solicitor will be able to guide you. Incidentally, if do choose to involve the legal profession, you might like to ask one of the photo trade bodies for contact details of one who is familiar with copyright theft.

Laurence J. Power

check out

http://www.voyagertraveldirect.co.uk/package/detail/vtd1092371?accomId=434716&brochId=2324

http://www.cheapholidaybargains.co.uk/detail.aspx?reference=CHB8307004&accomId=434716&brochId=2324

http://www.cheaplastminuteholiday.co.uk/detail.aspx?reference=LMH2833373&accomId=434716&brochId=2324

http://www.takemetogreece.co.uk/detail.aspx?reference=TMG628870&accomId=434716&brochId=2324

It appears that Voyager use a multitude of site names to get people to them. I trawled through a few and found what I beleive is your image on each of the above.

Laurence J. Power

thanks for taking the time to do that :-)

Yep it's on all four sites. They seem to use the same four images for all the sites.Mine included.

I wonder if this is now multiple copyright infingement?

What really annoys me is that they've cropped the image and it just doesn't look as good that way lol

BTW I tried using tineye to search for the image and it searched like a kazillion images but came up with zero!!!

Maybe Orsencarter can help.......;-)

quoting post from Petesky:

---

I wonder if this is now multiple copyright infingement?

---

Yes it is ... each instance is a separate infringement. you can treat them individually or take a chance and add a multiplier.

Incidentally Tineye indexes less images per day than are uploaded by a considerable margin, (billions) considering the Internet got around twenty years head start on the search engine and by their own admission they don't index certain categories like social networking sites it will never be a definitive tool, it has its uses but finding an image misused using Tineye is more about luck or if you are a pessimist finding one could be the tip of an iceberg for multiple infractions ... when looking for stolen images you will get a better hit rate from searching by subject matter using a regular search engine.

quoting post from Petesky:

---

To be honest, with the great spectrum of conflicting replies I've read, I'm still unsure what to do.

---

Seems to me you have several options if you pursue it ...

you could ...

1, you can write a fire a brimstone letter from Mr angry of Portsmouth

2, you could write a more sedate letter pointing out how naughty they are, and suggest they donate to a charity of your choosing if they want to make amends.

3, you can invoice them for a figure you think they will pay to get you off their back and if you get it right you'll get a cheque in the post.

4, you could invoice them for a "massive" amount (now revised down to NUJ rates) , almost certainly getting you caught up in a legal dispute taking time and money, with a very small possibility that you'll get nothing or less than you could have got.

5, Or lastly you could take another option not yet discussed: find their office wrap some dog shit in newspaper set fire to it and put it though their letter box,


Whatever you decide to do I wish you the best of luck ...

quoting post from MattMiller:

---

Seems to me you have several options if you pursue it ...

you could ...

1, you can write a fire a brimstone letter from Mr angry of Portsmouth

2, you could write a more sedate letter pointing out how naughty they are, and suggest they donate to a charity of your choosing if they want to make amends.

3, you can invoice them for a figure you think they will pay to get you off their back and if you get it right you'll get a cheque in the post.

4, you could invoice them for a "massive" amount (now revised down to NUJ rates) , almost certainly getting you caught up in a legal dispute taking time and money, with a very small possibility that you'll get nothing or less than you could have got.

5, Or lastly you could take another option not yet discussed: find their office wrap some dog shit in newspaper set fire to it and put it though their letter box,


Whatever you decide to do I wish you the best of luck ...

---

Matt

Please advise where I recommended a "massive" invoice, at all times I have suggested NUJ rates doubled as penalty for copyright infringement.

Laurence J. Power