Copright infringed

[agb]

Just noticed this article in the Brisbane Times, probably also in the SMH.
A small, and perhaps for someone a costly reminder about who owns the copyright to photos.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/royal-photographer-to-sue-dinnigan-over-dress-image-20111111-1nbn7.html

[peterb666]

It was a pretty daft thing to do and something she should have known better. I think her lawyers may need to think a little more about the statement they made as using a photo to support a press statement promoting yourself is, you would exepct, a commercial use and not news commentary.

[kiwi]

I find most interesting the cost of buying the photos in the first place

Wow

Would have nowhere near that value for editorial use.

Must be for sole commercial useage.

[peterb666]

To add a photo into a press release about how wonderful you are is hardly editorial use. I think the issue here is not the 'standard' fee which probably would not have applied but the claim that the photo was part of a set that was being sold with exclusivity for use in the Australian market, therein lies the value from the perspective of the copyright owner and upon which damages would be claimed.

[Longshots]

I find most interesting the cost of buying the photos in the first place

Wow

Would have nowhere near that value for editorial use.

Must be for sole commercial usage.

On what basis do you make the statement "would have nowhere hear that value for editorial use"? Are you a magazine editor for New Womans Weekly, Hello Magazine, Tatler, or anyone of the thousands of mags around the world who negotiate with many paparazzis. Or do you have a lengthy experience of selling a unique image on the world or even Australian market ? I'd suggest you have a quick chat with Darren Lyons, ("the boy from Geloong"), "Mr Paparazzi", to enlighten you as to what mags pay on a fairly regular basis for reasonable images.



There is no such thing as a standard fee.

Its like expecting a standard rate for a meal in a restaurant.

One of the positives and negatives about being in business for yourself, is the pleasure or pain of making the decision on how much you value your product or service. So to suggest that there is any standard for something that you produce is rather absurd.

And in the field of editorial, the value is what the person in the buying situation is prepared to pay, and what the seller is prepared to sell for. Some recent editorial sales would make your hair stand on end. If you use something before you've agreed a fee, the obvious point is that you are then caught in using it without permission then you will be held by the "short and curlies" with the seller is in a much more powerful position then before usage - ie wave goodbye to any chance of negotiation on usage fee, and welcome to infringement fees, and breach of copyright claims. Dumb are those who once they've stolen someone elses intellectual property, that they dont immediately capitulate to the claim for usage, and avoid the costly and unnecessary copyright claim.

One of the most misunderstood points these days is that images have a value and that value is placed on the image by a combination of both seller and purchaser ( please refer to absurdly expensive image recently sold for squillions that I personally would not value very highly, barely thousands, let alone millions). So to infer or suggest that there is a "standard" is IMHO both misleading and slightly ridiculous.

[sunny6teen]

I'd suggest you have a quick chat with Darren Lyons, ("the boy from Geloong"), "Mr Paparazzi", to enlighten you as to what mags pay on a fairly regular basis for reasonable images.


someone had better pay up. those ab implants aren't covered by medicare

[kiwi]

William,

This hardly looks like an exclusive pap image to me, I'd say one of thousands snapped that same event, but yeah, I'm just assuming, if it's exclusive of course the value is skewed. And I do have some understanding of the cost of an editorial only use shot where there is large supply and limited demand, this sort of shot seems similar to me, isn't it ?

And whilst no restaurant charges the same for steak, there is a widely understand and quite narrow range.

[ricktas]

William,

This hardly looks like an exclusive pap image to me, I'd say one of thousands snapped that same event, but yeah, I'm just assuming, if it's exclusive of course the value is skewed. And I do have some understanding of the cost of an editorial only use shot where there is large supply and limited demand, this sort of shot seems similar to me, isn't it ?

And whilst no restaurant charges the same for steak, there is a widely understand and quite narrow range.

My understanding ( I recall reading it somewhere) that Woman's Day signed an exclusive deal with the Papp organisation for the photos, to use in Australia.

EDIT: It is in the article you linked to in the original post : "Her use of them also dampened a deal Ikon had struck with Woman's Day for what it believed would be an Australian exclusive".

[Longshots]

William,

This hardly looks like an exclusive pap image to me, I'd say one of thousands snapped that same event, but yeah, I'm just assuming, if it's exclusive of course the value is skewed. And I do have some understanding of the cost of an editorial only use shot where there is large supply and limited demand, this sort of shot seems similar to me, isn't it ?

And whilst no restaurant charges the same for steak, there is a widely understand and quite narrow range.

What a load of rubbish. Narrow range ? Hardly.

You're clearly missing the point, and I would certainly highlight that everything you're saying is based on your assumption, a very limited "understanding" and very little else. How many self commissioned images have you actually sold and had published in the same type of media ?


Whether its exclusive or not may effect the sale on the open market, but if the photographer places a value on that, then thats the photographer/picture agency's choice.

The point Darren is that if I decide to charge $85 for a steak and around the corner someone charges $25 for a steak, that is my prerogative alone.

And with no offence intended but you know as much about the price of steaks as you know about the potential value of photography. I can easily find, just within Brisbane, a steak from as little as $2.00 (source RoyalMail Hotel) to $88 (source MooMoo) - hardly narrow. But lets not get pedantic about what you think is a narrow range as thats clearly not.

I wasnt aware that you were an editorial expert on royal images and what is exclusive and what isnt. ? The point is, even if there were a thousand photographers there, the art is not just getting something exclusive but how its sold - ie its all in the selling, and little else. Again you didnt pay much attention to my pointing out Mr Lyons did you ?

All of this is rather pointless as the value (which if you want to do some research on facts and experience and not just assume, you would find that the value placed on the images is reasonable - ie speak to an agency, tell them how you intend to use an image and they will provide you with a licence based on that use - oooh come to think of it almost exactly like some software companies produce software for clients) of the images has been completely ignored by the person who used them. This is now coming around to bite them on the bum. And I dont have any sympathy with them.

And FWIW, the agency/photographer would be mad to try and claim a ridiculous or inflated value, as that can and has turned around to bite copyright infringement claims.

[Redgum]

Interesting William and as always, on the money. Remember though that Kiwi is not a professional and unlikely to have inside knowledge on these specific copyright issues. Don't be too harsh.
In respect to news and copyright (as alluded to in the article) there are a whole set of special rules (and precedents) for both still and video photographers. Often referred to as "freedom of the press". I've been there a number of times over the years and in every case a photo exposed in news footage has been permissible. Benefit of the doubt I guess. We can't muzzle the media.
Whatever happens with this issue the photographer has achieved his purpose by himself gaining publicity for his general photography. He won't lose out whichever way it goes.

[Longshots]

Interesting William and as always, on the money. Remember though that Kiwi is not a professional and unlikely to have inside knowledge on these specific copyright issues. Don't be too harsh.
In respect to news and copyright (as alluded to in the article) there are a whole set of special rules (and precedents) for both still and video photographers. Often referred to as "freedom of the press". I've been there a number of times over the years and in every case a photo exposed in news footage has been permissible. Benefit of the doubt I guess. We can't muzzle the media.
Whatever happens with this issue the photographer has achieved his purpose by himself gaining publicity for his general photography. He won't lose out whichever way it goes.

Thanks for the comment Redgum, while I didnt want to be harsh, I think its helpful to identify what actually happens in the "business" (as this forum is called the business of photography) and offer accurate information about what actually happens, and not what is assumed.

If someone is then going to pursue a point of view with a perceived knowledge, then I think its fair to ask on what basis the opinion is offered. Its all too easy for the internet to sow seeds of "knowledge" based on nothing more than assumptions. Sorry to be blunt, and as I said to Darren no offence is intended, my apologies if any is taken.

[kiwi]

Actually I do sell editorial images professionally just to be clear, sport only, but even so.

Based on ricks explanation I understand the images usage was not typical editorial shot bought off an agency

So, yes, fair enough

[Longshots]

I was aware that you sell sports editorial images Darren. How often you beat an agency at their own game is another discussion. I know I wouldnt be able to compete with an agency (and its worth highlighting this as its the agency pursuing this)


But the point is who chooses the value. The seller and yes I agree market forces. But if the purchaser simply uses them (and this is a seperate topic ie breach of copyright) the seller has all the balls in their court and can within reason, name their price. Knowing what the reasonable price is, is easily found - log on to Getty as an image buyer, detail what you are going to use the image for, unlimited buy out etc, and they will automatically give you a price that Getty will charge you. The point I was making is that this a capitalist economy, and the seller has the right to name their price, the potential buyer has the right to turn down or negotiate that price. Take that option away - ie use the images without first agreeing on a price, and the seller has you the user by the short and curlies.

[Shelley]

Understand all the legalities etc., but in all seriousness I think it's about money. If the photographer allowed this particular image be used by someone and then it's used by someone else like Dinnigan without permission, and then to say that photo affected woman's day deal, why let it out to begin with, surely they have more photos for this lucrative deal.

I really believe it is blown out of proportion. I agree that there is breach of copyright, it happens to a lot of photographers and will happen again because of people's ignorance not flagrant abuse.

[Kym]

$5000 is peanuts to Dinnigan ... they should pay up.

[kiwi]

No offense William. As discussed I would expect this sort of image to be a stock standard image you could buy for relative peanuts of say Getty for editorial use in say a newspaper

If its not yes, steak/stock doesn't apply.

[peterb666]

$5000 is peanuts to Dinnigan ... they should pay up.

I think the the GBP4.5 to 5k was the normal sort of fee for this type but there were other considerations such as the potential use of the image. There is also a difference between what you pay if you ask to use a image up front and legitimately as compared to trying to use without permission. Dinnigan did wrong and should have certainly know better.

[ricktas]

One thing this case does highlight is the in-distinction and blurred lines between what is commercial promotion and what is editorial/journalistic type use. So often now we see 'info-mercials' that almost pretend to be news items that are in fact just advertising. I have even noticed a trend on the News websites to have a product listed with a heading that would make you believe the story is going to be a review of items, only to find that the actual article is really just a disguised advertisement for a product.

I reckon the definition of advertising as opposed to media release/journalistic story etc, has been blurred to the point that neither are exclusive of the other, and this would contribute to mis-understandings/mis-use/abuse from all sides.

Recently on a News website, I clicked a heading in the news technology section "Size Matter with your new Television", which I thought (naively) might be a news article about new tech in large screen tv's, but no, the entire 'article' was about one brand, one model, and how great it was, with prices and places to buy linked at the bottom of the article. All in all, it was just an ad, disguised as being news.

[AutumnCurl]

The way i see it is that they are asking a higher fee as they are "royal" photographers... you cant just walk into a event that a royal is attending, they would have to have security checks, passes, be on some sort of list etc

When Brad and Angelina had babies the first photos sold for over a mill and they were taking in their home, so a photo of a princess in a designer dress, as a guest at a wedding is pap gold.

This photo also has a lot to do with fashion, as fashion get filtered, from top end designers like Chanel, sass & bride and marc jacobs and others that can been seen in the glossy pages of vogue, down to your supermarket mother wearing target.
So what style seen on the princess this week will be in the aisles of target in 6-8 months, so getting "seen" has opened many doors for this designer.