Fees for the commercial use of photos

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by Phil Stovell, May 19, 2010.

  1. I need somewhere to park my car. Presumably you'll be flattered if I use
    your lovely drive, and not being a professional car-parkist you won't be
    losing out when I don't pay. I won't ask first of course, as I don't
    understand the concept of ownership. Maybe I'll have a picnic on the
    lawn too, or perhaps a party. Anyone else want to come?
    Willy Eckerslyke, May 25, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Phil Stovell

    David Guest

    Parking my drive would personally inconvenience me as I need it to get my
    bicycle through to the garage. Using a photograph that I've taken and put
    on the internet would not.
    David, May 25, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Phil Stovell

    Tony Guest

    So if I bake a pie (note, I'm not a baker) and put it on the window ledge
    to cool down, and someone takes it, it's my fault and I should be grateful
    they enjoyed my pie?

    I think the OP should at the very least complain, they may not even know
    they were doing anything wrong.
    Tony Evans
    Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
    blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
    books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
    [ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
    Tony, May 25, 2010
  4. Phil Stovell

    grinch Guest

    Do try to follow the link I provided in my second post ,it will explain the
    real not the theoretical world to you. Also on usenet is usual to reply to
    the latest thread not one 6 days old as we have normally passed on by then.

    I am sorry if you find the above insulting but it was meant to be , but then
    you started it.
    I have a friend who is a one man outdoor company and lets say he is called
    xxx.ltd ,He registered the company in say 2001 .A much larger household name
    outdoor (zzz.plc) company registered the same name as a trademark for one
    of their products in say 2004 .

    They have recently tried to sue him for trading using the name of his
    company which he has title to. He has been advised by his lawyer to cease
    trading as XXX.ltd and change his name .So now he is xxx.ltd trading as yyy

    As you can trademark an image the coke bottle for instance, the above is
    possible if not plausible or likely .
    grinch, May 26, 2010
  5. Phil Stovell

    David Guest

    You no longer have your pie.
    If he copies it though and leaves you with yours you should be flattered.
    Mention it to them yes.
    David, May 26, 2010
  6. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    So, don't post bollocks, then.
    His lawyer is full of shit. Or you've just made it up.
    Grimly Curmudgeon, May 26, 2010
  7. Phil Stovell

    spike1 Guest

    That's not legally enforcable.
    You didn't SIGN anything, clicking a box saying "I agree" is not the same.
    'sides, you can't give the copyright away of a photo you don't own the
    copyright TO, and I imagine a lot of people upload photos not taken by
    spike1, May 29, 2010
  8. Phil Stovell

    Morphix Guest

    Some people have tried to discourage you here from asking for payment and
    using the court option. I think you should ask for a reasonable amount
    as you originally suggested, £100-£150 seems reasonable. With the greatest
    respect, the photo is nothing speculator it's just an ordinary shot they
    could of easily taken themselves surely. So asking for £100's or £1000's
    is a bit over the top I think and they would be likely to try and avoid
    paying you that much.

    That said, this is a commercial use of your work and they are making money
    from your work. If taking photos is how you earn your living, you have every
    moral and legal right to be paid for your work.

    If they refuse to pay, do not hesitate to sue them for copyright violation
    and loss of earnings. The law is on your side here, this is theft. All you
    need to do is file a claim in the Small Claims Court (County Court). I think
    a letter to the pub threatening legal action in the County Court with
    additional legal costs, would likely be enough to settle out of court for
    £100 - £150.

    Good luck!

    Morphix, May 29, 2010
  9. Phil Stovell

    Morphix Guest

    Phil, do not give up so easily! Write them a letter and if that doesn't
    work, issue a County Court Summons for payment (you can do this online, its
    not complicated). Just make sure you have proof you own the image. If they
    reply by letter or phone acknowledging it's your photo in any way that would
    be sufficient evidence. Likewise if your image appears online and is cached
    by Google with a date earlier than it appeared in their advertisement, that
    would be evidence you have copyright.

    I do too, it's great isn't it!

    Morphix, May 29, 2010
  10. Phil Stovell

    Phil Stovell Guest

    Thanks for all the replies, very interesting.

    I've discussed this with some friends who were present at the pub incident
    (see below) and I've sent them a bill for £150 (£50 each for use on
    cards, menus and adverts), and withdrawn permission for them to use the
    photo after June (not that they ever had it).

    In short, I was a semi-regular in that pub until December, I now use
    another one within walking distance from where I live.

    I brought his usage of my photo to his attention several times between
    about August and December, which normally resulted in him storming off in
    a huff. I'd nearly forgotten about it, when on the Tuesday before the cup
    final, I went into my local with SWMBO and he was there (pissed).
    Apparently he'd already made a bit of an idiot of himself. He started
    having a go at me over the photo, saying he could do what he wanted with
    it as it's a photo of his pub. I tried to point out that I owned the photo
    and he couldn't, but he started getting threatening. Fortunately, the guy
    who he was with took him away shortly after.

    On cup final day, I left a letter for him, containing a print of this page:


    and a copy of a webpage I set up showing the card and corresponding
    cropped image of mine. I left it for 2 weeks, but he didn't contact me, so
    last saturday I left him an invoice for £150.
    Phil Stovell, Jun 1, 2010
  11. Phil Stovell

    Bruce Guest

    It would be interesting to know how your dispute developed, if at all.
    The landlord does have a point. If you make an image of his pub that
    is substantially and recognisably a representation of the pub (rather
    than a shot where the pub was an incidental part of the background of
    an image of some other subject), he has image rights.

    There is nothing to stop you making the image and keeping it for
    personal use. But you do not have the right to publish it unless you
    have a "property release" from the landlord and/or the leaseholder. If
    you do publish it, for example on a web site, the landlord has the
    right to insist that you should take it down or pay royalties for use
    of the image rights. He would be entitled to invoice you, rather than
    the other way around.

    If the use of the image is purely "editorial" there is a get-out, but
    that only applies to use in or on recognised publications or web sites
    that are news-based.

    If you were to try to sell the image for publication you would find
    that any recognised picture agency would first ask you if you had a
    signed property release. That's similar to a model release signed by
    an individual - it grants the photographer the image rights. If a
    signed release is not provided, the picture agency will automatically
    refuse to handle the image.

    The situation appears very messy. You did not have the right to
    publish the image, but you did. The landlord did not have the right
    to copy the image and publish it on cards, menus and adverts, but he

    I suppose that the landlord might have been very annoyed to see the
    image published on the web without his permission and may have decided
    to use it on his cards, menus and adverts as a means of obtaining some
    redress. I think his annoyance is understandable, but two wrongs
    don't make a right, and what he did was wrong. But what you did was
    also wrong.

    This appears to be a matter that would be best sorted out via a calm,
    polite discussion. In a way, both of you are in the right *and* in
    the wrong.

    I don't see any material difference in the rightness or wrongness of
    what either of you has done. So why not just agree to drop it?

    At the end of the day, you can give yourself a pat on the back for
    having made an image of the pub that the landlord considered good
    enough to use. But don't expect him to pay you a penny.
    Bruce, Jun 16, 2010
  12. Phil Stovell

    Justin C Guest

    The OP posted from a .uk domain, I think it's safe to assume he's in the
    UK. In which case what you're saying is wrong, the photographer has
    *all* the rights, the owner of the building has none.

    I'd like to know where in the world it is that a building owner has the
    rights you mention so that I cane be forewarned.

    Justin C, Jun 16, 2010
  13. Phil Stovell

    Bruce Guest

    I am also posting from the UK.

    The situation in the UK is as I described. Your ignorance of the law
    is no excuse.
    Bruce, Jun 17, 2010
  14. Phil Stovell

    Mike Bristow Guest

    Mike Bristow, Jun 17, 2010
  15. Phil Stovell

    Chris H Guest

    Also last year the UK magazine Digital Camera did a whole feature on
    just this and does not agree with Bruce.
    Chris H, Jun 17, 2010
  16. There is a clause explicitly making photographs of buildings


    62 Representation of certain artistic works on public display

    (1) This section applies to—

    (a) buildings, and

    (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic
    craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in
    premises open to the public.

    (2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—

    (a) making a graphic work representing it,

    (b) making a photograph or film of it, or

    (c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual
    image of it.

    (3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of
    copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme
    service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section,
    not an infringement of the copyright.
    Richard Kettlewell, Jun 17, 2010
  17. Phil Stovell

    Phil Stovell Guest

    I have given him an invoice, but I'm unlikely to follow it up.

    I don't believe what Bruce says, there would be NO photos of any buildings
    anywhere online if it were true, and Google street view would be shut
    down, which has quite a good picture of the pub.


    Phil Stovell, Jun 17, 2010
  18. That's interesting! Now thinking aloud re: 1b above.

    Among my photography I shoot art works - usually in context of public
    reactions to them. eg.

    Normally I contact the artist and ask formal permission for showing
    their work in this context. In that case I add a link to the artist's
    web site, and all are happy.

    Last year I held an exhibition of some of my 'Art from Art' series, with
    prints for sale. I encountered two problems:-

    1. A Henry Moore in Yorkshire Sculpture Park was given permission to be
    shown but not sold by YSP. (Though I think copyright of Moore's work is
    held by the HM foundation.)

    2. Tate Modern directed me to the Design and Artists Collecting Society
    (DACS) who insisted that I paid a fee merely for exhibiting one photo
    that included a work by Jean (Hans) Arp. They weren't able to give me
    any indication of the fee without my applying formally, and so I
    withdrew that image from the exhibition.

    I wonder how that relates to (1)b + (2)b.


    Michael J Davis
    "It gets real lonely as a moderate activist, standing there
    alone with a sign that reads, 'Reasonable informed discussion
    of the issues as soon as feasible!' " -- David Brake
    Michael J Davis, Jun 18, 2010
  19. But is selling copies covered by "issue to the public of copies", or does
    it just mean giving them away? Also where does exhibiting stand, it is
    neither broadcasting nor giving copies away. It would be clearer if they
    had said "publishing the image" instead of "issuing copies", since that
    would cover all circumstances. The fact that they don't use the term
    "publish" makes me wonder if the rights are after all restricted.

    It's hard to imagine though that you could be allowed to distribute copies
    yet not to exhibit, I mean you could get round such a limitation by just
    handing out copies of the pics in question at the door to gallery visitors!

    Gordon Freeman, Jun 19, 2010
  20. I think both are covered. The statute is:

    18. Infringement by issue of copies to the public.

    (1) The issue to the public of copies of the work is an act
    restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work.

    (2) References in this Part to the issue to the public of copies of
    a work are to-

    (a) the act of putting into circulation in the EEA copies not
    previously put into circulation in the EEA by or with the consent
    of the copyright owner, or

    (b) the act of putting into circulation outside the EEA copies not
    previously put into circulation in the EEA or elsewhere.

    (3) References in this Part to the issue to the public of copies of a
    work do not include-

    (a) any subsequent distribution, sale, hiring or loan of copies
    previously put into circulation (but see section 18A: infringement
    by rental or lending), or

    (b) any subsequent importation of such copies into the United
    Kingdom or another EEA state,

    except so far as paragraph (a) of subsection (2) applies to putting
    into circulation in the EEA copies previously put into circulation
    outside the EEA.

    (a) any subsequent distribution, sale, hiring or loan of those
    copies, or

    (b) any subsequent importation of those copies into the United
    Kingdom, except that the restricted act of issuing copies to the
    public includes any rental of copies to the public.

    (4) References in this Part to the issue of copies of a work include
    the issue of the original.
    The point seems to be to restrict the act of handing over a copy to
    someone (first-hand), so the copyright holder gets the first go at
    selling the work.

    If a trader imports a crate of CDs from Hong Kong and sets up a market
    stall they're not really "publishing" them as I'd understand the word
    but they are certainly issuing them to the public.
    AFAIK there is no explicit restriction on exhibiting artistic works
    (which includes photos and buildings) at all - there are restrictions on
    performances (s19) but they don't apply to the kind of work we're
    talking about.

    (IANAL, I just spend more of my spare time than is sensible reading bits
    of copyright law!)
    Richard Kettlewell, Jun 19, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.