Talk to a lawyer, not Reddit.
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Photography
33 readers
1 users here now
A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.
This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not to let the publisher off the hook, but there’s a good chance your photos were uploaded to some sort of content management system along with other photos that they actually licensed, and someone in the organization found yours and assumed they were licensed.
If you hope to work with this publisher again, $200 is on the very low side but won’t burn a bridge. If you don’t expect to work with them again, I’d invoice more like $1000 – search for some legalese to include in your communications with them.
I’m assuming your info was in the metadata and that’s how they knew to credit you? It’s a good lesson for artists to populate those metadata fields before sharing work with clients.
Not to let the publisher off the hook, but there’s a good chance your photos were uploaded to some sort of content management system along with other photos that they actually licensed, and someone in the organization found yours and assumed they were licensed.
Well then that system is not managing the content very well. It's still their responsibility.
I’m assuming your info was in the metadata and that’s how they knew to credit you? It’s a good lesson for artists to populate those metadata fields before sharing work with clients.
I'm curious how you think the client can lack the knowledge required to track author and licensing information in a content management system but somehow have the knowledge to inspect image metadata to extract the embedded contact information?
Because I’ve seen it happen first-hand. The metadata fields get automatically pulled over into the content management system, but there’s no field for “this has been properly licensed and here are the terms,” at least in the one I’ve seen. It’s a flaw, to be sure. Irresponsible but not nefarious.
How do y’all prove that it’s your photo? I feel like anyone can say it’s their photo?
What rights did you grant in this particular instance, especially with regard to syndication?
This article shares some useful information on syndication starting where it says: The syndication agency I started with was…
https://petapixel.com/2019/01/19/the-pros-and-cons-of-syndicating-your-photos/
Lots of fluff upfront, so I’d skip ahead.
Do you have a contract with this publication? Is it your contract or theirs? If so, what are the terms of the contract regarding use of photos?
Your potential recourse here may depend greatly on a contract or lack thereof. If you have a contact that has stipulations on the use of the photos, you definitely have a leg to stand on when seeking compensation due to breach of contract.
If there is no contract, this is where things are less clear. You provided them with the images so they may be entitled to the use of the images as long as you're credited (as it appeared they did). On the other hand, if you registered the images, there is potential that you may be entitled to compensation even without a contract.
Every single contract or release that I use covers commercial use of my photos for this reason. It's much easier to win a breach of contract than it is to win a copyright case, as most photographers don't register their photos. My understanding is that registering photos for copyright (within 90 days) is key in winning a copyright case and your chances of a win are much lower without registering them.
For the most accurate advice you need to contact an attorney and not all of us clueless keyboard warriors here on reddit. Most will give you a free consultation to advise you if you have a potential case or not.
Or you could just invoice them for $200 if you feel that's what your photos were worth and maybe they will cut you a check.
First they said they will take it down (as if that was enough.) Then agreed to pay $250.