what would you do?

[campo]

I recently took some images of a sporting event. The association running the event asked for some of my images for use on their website and I graciously gave them the images for free on the condition that they credit the images with my name. I've since noticed that they've plastered my images on their website, facebook site and printed materials for their competitions - all of which without any credit to me.

I've volunteered for this organisation for the past 10 years and know they have continual staff turnover which is probably why this occurred...but that said, they're a business and they're using these images to make lots of $$ whilst not meeting the T&C's the images came with.

What would you do?

[kiwi]

Is your arrangement in writing ?

You have two choices - get them to backlink all their website images to you, tag the facebook ones back to you also so at least you are getting advertising and maybe their membesr can buy more off you, or tell them that they have breached your arrangement and to either rectify the situation or you will not be providing them images here on in and/or they will be getting an invoice

[FallingHorse]

It's this sort of behaviour that devalues togs work. Why would anyone pay for an image if they can get them for free and then not abide by the T&C's

[Whisky_Mac]

Yeah, probably due to the staffing. The web stuff can be easily fixed as web is a live document and can be easily changed. Any printed matter you will probably have to just accept an apology for as it would be to expensive to overprint the matterial.

[kiwi]

It's this sort of behaviour that devalues togs work. Why would anyone pay for an image if they can get them for free and then not abide by the T&C's

hang on a minute

It's very "normal" to provide some restricted use images to the association in return for promotion and access, there's nothing wrong with that per se. It's the breach, probably innocently, of an agreement that's the point

[campo]

It's in writing.

Thanks for the ideas, i was thinking along similar lines but I thought I'd pose the question to hear peoples ideas...

They're definitely not getting any more images with such generous conditions as it's obvious they're unable to follow simple contractual obligations. I'm definitely going to remind them about the T&Cs!

[FallingHorse]

hang on a minute

It's very "normal" to provide some restricted use images to the association in return for promotion and access, there's nothing wrong with that per se. It's the breach, probably innocently, of an agreement that's the point

I know it's normal - I am not saying that it has been devalued because Campo gave the images out, I am saying they have been devalued by the fact that the association didn't abide by the T&C's - in not crediting the tog not only do they have free images but now there is no reference to who took them which means that no-one will be looking at his/her portfolio etc

[Longshots]

hang on a minute

It's very "normal" to provide some restricted use images to the association in return for promotion and access, there's nothing wrong with that per se. It's the breach, probably innocently, of an agreement that's the point

Ah well I would disagree with that Darren. Its only normal to some, because its a bargaining power for the photographer to gain that access in some cases.

In this case, clearly the association stuffed up and they should make amends. I would suggest asking for a printed apology in their next printed newsletter. As clearly the web situation can be amended to comply with the original agreement.

[kiwi]

I can only comment on the very amateur associations myself and others I know are involved with William where it's common to as part of your own marketing, or relationship building. I understand you have greater exposure than I in these things, so, if it's not standard practice good to know.

[Longshots]

I can only comment on the very amateur associations myself and others I know are involved with William where it's common to as part of your own marketing, or relationship building. I understand you have greater exposure than I in these things, so, if it's not standard practice good to know.


Yes Darren, I'm aware of that, but Campo did indicate that this was a business:




they're a business and they're using these images to make lots of $$ whilst not meeting the T&C's the images came with.

[kiwi]

Yip, agreed, I think amatuer sport only refers to the players. My local football club is amatuer sport, the club's a business though

[Redgum]

This kind of activity is not restricted to voluntary or small business either. Government departments do it on a regular basis despite the best of protection.
Nip it in the bud with diplomacy and get the outcome you need as soon as possible. If that doesn't work reconsider your position but think carefully of your financial implications if some kind of legal remedy is required.
Our company has a policy of not pursuing this type of issue if the value is under $5k. Pride is not practical.