Someone is publishing my photos

Aren’t you technically always on duty/call when in the services? 😀

‘Technically’ – I like that expression! No way, if you are ‘on leave’, no way was I being called for duty! Even when the station had exercises, they always had to start them at 5am in the morning to ensure they got the best response. Any earlier and some would have hang-overs from the night before and any later and others would be ‘uncontactable’. That was it, we could only be attacked in the early hours of the morning. ‘Technically on duty’…..get real! 😉

. I took thousands of photos when I was in the RAF. How would they know if I was ‘on duty’ or ‘off duty’? :rolleyes:

Aren’t you technically always on duty/call when in the services? 😀

I dont know if they charge exactly, however every photo taken by a Member of HM Forces while on duty is Crown Copyright.

. I took thousands of photos when I was in the RAF. How would they know if I was ‘on duty’ or ‘off duty’? :rolleyes:

Since when has the crown started to charge for use of their images.

They always have and this includes official RAAF and RNZAF photographs, all covered by ‘Crown Copyright’. Suggest you read this:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/copyright-guidance/copyright-and-publishing.htm

Going back to the free and easy use of photos by magazines – I once submitted an article to a magazine complete with covering letter and request for rates if printed and offering the rights for the article etc. I heard nothing for a short while so imagine my surprise when I bought the magazine and found that the article had been printed with inverted commas at the beginning and end and called a “letter” (1000 words – some letter) complete with one of the photos to illustrate said article. Imagine more of my surprise when I found that as it was a “letter” the magazine wouldn’t pay me for said article. At the time I was just getting in to writing so didn’t want to rock the boat – needless to say I never offer articles to that mag any more!!!

Doesn’t sound like anything unnormal. All they are doing is making sure that their material is used for a Positive outlook. Private use free of charge, printed material, “well only if you print what we want you to print otherwise never again etc”.

Dude, you already paid for the typhoons with your tax’s. why do you want to pay more 🙂

Same rules apply here in Australia. I have had to deal with the RAAF on some issues recently. They allowed me to go flying with the Roulettes for a few days. While I have a copy of the images, it is no secret that they are in fact Crown copyright as I was invited to participate etc etc. For them to be used in any way, I have to seek permission. I can not use them otherwise. Once Permission is granted. no money is paid and no money is allowed to be made from it by me.

It’s all about PR.

Not just PR (and brand recognition into the bargain), but income generation. Witness the infamous copyright issues over the “RAF” roundel. I may have to pay for a bit of a Typhoon, but I don’t have to purchase Crown photos unless I really want a high-res version of a specific photo. I’m not saying they’re out for every penny (they are very reasonable when it comes to educational uses), but MoD and the various services have to consider today’s commercial and cultural situation and try to get their slice.

Doesn’t sound like anything unnormal. All they are doing is making sure that their material is used for a Positive outlook. Private use free of charge, printed material, “well only if you print what we want you to print otherwise never again etc”.

Dude, you already paid for the typhoons with your tax’s. why do you want to pay more 🙂

Same rules apply here in Australia. I have had to deal with the RAAF on some issues recently. They allowed me to go flying with the Roulettes for a few days. While I have a copy of the images, it is no secret that they are in fact Crown copyright as I was invited to participate etc etc. For them to be used in any way, I have to seek permission. I can not use them otherwise. Once Permission is granted. no money is paid and no money is allowed to be made from it by me.

It’s all about PR.

Ken,

Uploading digital images on to the Internet are indeed putting them in the public domain, for anyone to use for their own private purposes,

Technically not putting them into the public domain (which implies you’re relinquishing owenership), but publishing them. HMGs online info on copyright states that copyright is not affected by the medium of publication, & specifically says this includes the internet. But yes, it’s the same as putting them in a book: “fair use” applies, e.g. I can photocopy a small portion of text or a photo from a book for personal use. I could legally download your pictures (the law’s caught up with technology, & distinguishes between “copying” as in downloading to view, & real copying), & I think if I wanted to use one as wallpaper, that’d be OK. But printing off 100 – no!

Since when has the crown started to charge for use of their images.

You might like to check out the T&Cs of this little gem: http://www.defenceimagedatabase.mod.uk/fotoweb/

(Eurofighter) Typhoons don’t come cheap. Why shouldn’t they charge the public for their photos? You might be thinking of the Crown Copyright >50 years ago rule which lets you use WW2 pics.

I dont know if they charge exactly, however every photo taken by a Member of HM Forces while on duty is Crown Copyright.

Since when has the crown started to charge for use of their images.

Pimpernel’s opening sentence, quoted above, brought a twisted smile to my face. Why? Well that sentence applied to Key Publishing/Today’s Pilot who used my air/air photo of a Piper Cub without my permission and indeed claimed it was theirs! (Excuse me while I turn my head to oneside, spit and utter some justified profanities in their direction). 😡

If it wasn’t for someone mentioning they had seen one of my pictures in that magazine, I would never have known anything about it. A nasty letter stating the facts and demanding that the original photograph (pre digital era) be returned to me, eventually resulted in an apology. And guess what was written on the back of the returned photo? My name and address! :rolleyes:

Key do this all the time! I was once told that ‘they have to capitalise’ on their photo archives’….yeah, right, other peoples! Have you noticed how many ‘MoD Crown Copyright’ and ‘IWM Copyright’ photos get published and credited to ‘Key Collection’. The ‘capitalise’ bit comes in to play because these people haven’t got the staff to check on every photo in every mag, but wonder how much in ‘Crown Copyright fees’ they owe? Also how many peoples unreturned photos suddenly become ‘Key Collection’ property?

Needless to say Theft of Copyright is not only a civil offence under The Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, 🙂

Breach of copyright is also a criminal offence (S.400 IIRC)

Key pay £20.00 for a colour photo in any of their mags (used to be £25.00 🙁 )

Ah… Squeeze the supplier, to maintain margins…

Sorry been on my current day job too long….

JDK, as droll as the discussion may be, I am certainly learning quite a bit from going through the posts from professional photographers. I’ve got quite a few decent shots I’d be interested in “shopping about”, but have long held back because I simply haven’t had the first clue as to how to go about it. I did spend quite a bit of time researching US and UK copyright law last fall with regards to WWII photos in conjunction with a book I wrote, and actually went to the trouble to get legal advice… but I know more recent works are privy to a far more complex set of regulations.

Anyways, I certainly appreciate all the input that’s been offered so far, and look forward to reading more on this topic. And no, I haven’t put any of my “good” stuff online… for obvious reasons! 🙂

Cheers,

Lynn

It is a sad scumbag author/publisher who chooses to adopt someone else’s pictures and claim it as their own. (not recognising the photographer is just as bad)

Pimpernel’s opening sentence, quoted above, brought a twisted smile to my face. Why? Well that sentence applied to Key Publishing/Today’s Pilot who used my air/air photo of a Piper Cub without my permission and indeed claimed it was theirs! (Excuse me while I turn my head to oneside, spit and utter some justified profanities in their direction). 😡

If it wasn’t for someone mentioning they had seen one of my pictures in that magazine, I would never have known anything about it. A nasty letter stating the facts and demanding that the original photograph (pre digital era) be returned to me, eventually resulted in an apology. And guess what was written on the back of the returned photo? My name and address! :rolleyes:

This was not the first occasion the glossy monthly mags and newspapers have ‘lifted’ my work. A certain Sunday quality paper published one of my shots, large size. Again, it was thanks to a friend who pointed it out. The galling thing was it was accredited to one of their staff photographers! What else have I missed?

The Copyright Designs and Patents Act of 1988 incorporates a section of The Crimal Law Act of 1977. A photograph is classed as ‘property’ belonging to the copyright holder, namely the photographer, but could also be the photographer / employer (gets complicated here, so we won’t go into that).

Needless to say Theft of Copyright is not only a civil offence under The Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, punishable by a heavy fine, but as it relates to Theft of Property under The Criminal Law Act 1977, incorporated into the above Act, it also carries a custodial sentence (last I heard was a maximum of 2 years).

The Small Claims Court may be one circuitous route following upon the issuance of an (unpaid) invoice. However, in one instance I refused to go down that avenue. Strictly speaking the SCC, if it went to a full hearing, could throw the case out. Why? Because Theft of Property is a criminal offence, and accordingly cannot be judged in a SCC. Besides, I liked the idea of putting the Managing Director of XXXXX Airport in prison for 2 years. 🙂

objects locations posssible problems ref photos

This link highlights objects and places where prior permission is deemed useful when the images are intended to be published commercially,
http://www.stockindustry.org/resources/specialReleases.html

fair rate

£40 min with £100 min for no permission shots relating to standard. All unique news work starts at £500 upwards.

Oh, and don’t forget – they are over a barrel, they broke the law.

****** what key pay. Go for standard brates.

I shoot stock. here’s what alamy (who hold some of my stuff) quote:

Image use RetailBook
Image size 1/4
Print run Oneup to 10,
Placement Inside
Duration One 1 year
Territory Worldwide

Price
£ 105.00

However A: I don’t know what size they’ve done it and b: I’d charge a surcharge for the theft as that is purely a standard rate. Maybe start with an invoice of £500 per picture, you can of course negotiate if you really want. Damien, any input on a charge?