DSLRUsers.com

well I hope this doesn't happen to you guys. But I founded out that one of my uni dept has decided to use 3 of my pictures on a t.v display in the lobby to showing this year uni racer which i worked on in my free time.
What ticks me off is that I was never asked, tolded or even credited on any of those pictures used.

Tomorrow I am going to speak to the head dept and demand a explaination for this. Did you think i should charge them of image usage for the 3 photos that have been up there for almost a fornight now?
Or maybe let them of with a waring since its christmas?

I think a good ticking off would be in order plus credit for the photos. BTW how did they get them in the first place?

Chris

I believe they got them off my website. although i can't tell you which ones in case they decide to take down the images.

Hit them for copyright mate

Cheers
Ray

If you think there could be further work or potential benefits to you from the exposure, better not piss em off too much. Insist of being credited to get your name out and hopefully there will be a next time. If you press hard for payment, they may grudgingly pay you and you'll remain in their bad books, or strip down your images and have nothing further to do with you - in both cases you ultimately lose.

Redline

Can you turn this into a win/win situation?

They have done the wrong thing and they need to know that but maybe you can, for example, allow them to use your images with proper acknowledgement of course and then turn the current situation to your advantage somehow?

It is always better to bulld bridges than to burn them. That is my advice.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do!

Cheers

Graham

To be honest, most people have bugged me for a " cd of pictures" or "full res files" so they can blow it up to god knows what size. I now give an automated response to whoever asks this, educating them of the sports photography industry(thanks sportsshooter.com!).I even offered cheaper prices as they were mostly uni students but still no sales.

I don't really want money from them, but I think they won't take me seriously unless I make a stand of some kind.

redline wrote:To be honest, most people have bugged me for a " cd of pictures" or "full res files" so they can blow it up to god knows what size. I now give an automated response to whoever asks this, educating them of the sports photography industry(thanks sportsshooter.com!).I even offered cheaper prices as they were mostly uni students but still no sales.

I don't really want money from them, but I think they won't take me seriously unless I make a stand of some kind.

Redline,
You have the right to do that and it's copyright, if they are your sweat then you have to after them, your action will be giving a good lesson for them to learn.

Universities tend to go on about plagiarism, copyright... This would be a huge issue if you had passed off someone else’s work as your own. The university should be held accountable. I think they need to at least acknowledge that they have done wrong, credit you for your work, and apologise – preferably publicly in the Uni paper.
I would not push too hard if you want to remain in their grace, but the indiscretion needs to be acknowledged and set right.

Just my 2c worth.

Cheers

Matt

G'day,
I agree in that I'd approach them to let them know that you are not impressed with their ripping off other's work, and expect they be replaced with signed ones. Would they do that with tutorials or academic material and be subject to legal proceedings??? If not, then why do it to you?

Good luck.
Mudder

You might want to be weary of this issue, and I can tell you from my experience as it's an annoying one.

If you used the school's equipment or if you're studying a course in relation to photography, they have control of your images until you leave.

We were told at our uni that they held copyright officially and we couldn't sell them legally without their permission until we left.

It's a very tricky issue this copyright thing.

However, if the camera is yours and / or you're not studying an arts related course, they are in breach of your copyright.

Nnnnsic wrote:If you used the school's equipment or if you're studying a course in relation to photography, they have control of your images until you leave.

We were told at our uni that they held copyright officially and we couldn't sell them legally without their permission until we left.

I forgot about if the gear is the schools, or the shots are taken in their time (assuming employed by them), but I never realised they have copyright of any students' Int. Prop. during any course duration... Wow...

Never been up with the legal stuff, lernin as I go... Thanks.

Cheers,
Mudder

Nnnnsic wrote:You might want to be weary of this issue, and I can tell you from my experience as it's an annoying one.

If you used the school's equipment or if you're studying a course in relation to photography, they have control of your images until you leave.

We were told at our uni that they held copyright officially and we couldn't sell them legally without their permission until we left.

It's a very tricky issue this copyright thing.

However, if the camera is yours and / or you're not studying an arts related course, they are in breach of your copyright.

Its all my stuff and theres nothing in my course that has anything to do with photography. perhaps i should forward a story to the uni newspaper
"uni copys student work", i would defintly get into their bad books

mattco6974 wrote:Universities tend to go on about plagiarism, copyright... This would be a huge issue if you had passed off someone else’s work as your own. The university should be held accountable. I think they need to at least acknowledge that they have done wrong, credit you for your work, and apologise – preferably publicly in the Uni paper.....
Matt

Matt is 100% right in my view. Those who live in glass houses etc

Don't let them get away with it. I wouldn't hit them too hard for money, but your work should be acknowledged, and an apology is certainly in order.

Thankyou for all you suggestions guys.
I'll let you all know what tomorrows outcome will be.

Credit should be given in any case..regardless.

Redline,

Not sure if this is too late, but here is what I think you should do:

First, bring attention to what they have done. Don't qualify it, don't say anything else about how you feel about it, how it's wrong etc, only tell them. Then wait for their response. Uni's (especially if it's state funded) can go under a lot of scrutiny for inscrupulous tactics, and I suspect that they will be react quickly. See what the response will be. If the response is a brushing off of the shoulder, and they don't care to use the photos or employ you in the future, then you begin to be more aggressive. The bridge is not a good one to keep around.

If the response is more sympathetic, then you work with them a little more. Talk about how the two of you can sort it out. Say things like "generally photogs get paid for this type of thing etc, so here's what we can do..."

If you think they want to avoid the entire situation, saying something like " I'll look into it and get back to you" say something like "I'll follow up with you tomorrow. I'll call you at 1130a. Does this work?"

I don't think you should make any definitive decisions until you get their immediate reaction though. Make sense?

Redlione,

Everyone else has pretty well summed it up. Don't take an aggressive approach; be nice and amicable, perhaps approaching it from a "by the way, were you aware?" perspectiive.

As someone else suggested, build, rather than burn, the bridges.

My 2c worth.

They have done the wrong thing. Probably without intent or malice.

Unis are struggling as it is with funding.

Why not just let them know their mistake and how it is akin to plagarism or music piracy but then donate your photos to the uni, provided you are properly credited.

Alyra wrote:Credit should be given in any case..regardless.

Thread hijack: And a warm welcome to Alyra - now our resident equestrian photog.

Onyx wrote:

Alyra wrote:Credit should be given in any case..regardless.

Thread hijack: And a warm welcome to Alyra - now our resident equestrian photog.

Real horsepower!

Welcome Alyra, and thanx Onyx for picking up on this.

I don't know if this is relevant in this case but I had heard that some Australian universities claim copyright for photographs taken on their grounds regardless of who takes them. In particular, the colleges of Melbourne University are treated in this manner. Now given we're talking about the Formula Uni (or whatever its called, I forget) then it was probably not held at a uni.

Copyright might be unclear in this case but your moral right to claim authorship is not. Have a look at: http://www.aesharenet.com.au/background ... 5moral.asp

You can't make money from moral rights but you can demand correct attribution.

Cheers,

Bruce

Well that's the other side of things.

Legally, I don't see how a university could claim copyright for a work done by a person who happens to go to the school if that person isn't A. taking an arts related course or B. using the institution's equipment.

Tourists or other citizens can come into the uni and take whatever pictures they damn well please without the institution enacting a copyright on their images.

By the way, when I saw equipment, I mean any overall equipment, including camera, computer for post processing, tripod, flash, memory, etc. It does deep.

However, even on the basis that if someone were to use the equipment or what not, the school is still required to have a caption somewhere near the work telling whose work it is.
The moment they don't, they've treated the work as if it's something they've outsourced to and at that moment, they should be paying the person.

So Redline, what happened? Did you rip someone a new one?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Cheers
Dean

well what can I say? thankyou to all who have had a contribution to this thread.

back to yesterday, well I decided to first discuss this matter with the student union if they knew anything about this. They basically said I was pretty much on my own, according the them if i put anything on the internet its basically free to public. I told the uni rep that was bs, if that was true ppl would rip images from freetoair tv/net to promote their products or whatever.
Then the union rep backed out of the conversation and the office for info from a higher up i believe. Came back and said that what she believe was right but was uncertain as she was not a copyright lawyer.

Anyway, I began my quest for the truth. The scene of the crime; i decided to photograph the tv and surround area with a film camera in case(another nikon cam of course) of future reference. headed up to the dept of the and started asking who was responsable for placing the images on the tv screen. funny enough i got the runabout 3 times to come to the last office. well the sectery was in the office acknowlegde that their office was responsible for placing images but the actual person who did it no longer worked there "surprise surprise". Well there was no point yellin at the sec, i decided to leave my details wishing to speak to this person.
As she told me she would came by.
But then asked if she doesn't work here why would she come by? (me)
"yeah she come by often". (sec)
Yeah right, I want her email then? (me)
"oh i don't know which ones still works" (sec)
"well gimme all of them!" (me)
"oh i can't give them to you they're private" (sec)
"what? I am getting ripped off again?" (me pissed off)
"well what would you like me to do, remove the images?" (sec)
"I want those image left there but I want my name up there too and this person to call me asap" (me)
"ok" (sec)
well thats most of it anyway.
I think I have to pay another vist soon with something to scare them. i just think they're not taking me seriously enough.

To top things off i had to pick-up my finshed 300mm from the camera clinic for a metering chip. Oh it was nice to have martix metering, but now if i want to use it on a d70, i only have a max aperture of f4 wtf!!!!
The techie though me that the "pro" cams can have the sub-command (22)dial disable so the aperture can to opened up to 2.8 on the ring. As the aperture control on the lense was not linear.
Oh man, if i had knew this piece of info i would have turned more towards a 300 f4 purchase. No where did i hear this. but i was going to use it at contant f5.6 alway who. but it still sux not being able to use f2.8 for loving bokeh!!!!!!!

[/end rant]

Gidday Redline,

IMO, the responsibility for those images being displayed does not rest only with the individual who ripped them off your site and put them up for display.

The bulk of the responsibility is for the head of that department to bear. It is that persons job to ensure that his/her subordinates/students work within the rules of the Uni and the law.

Speaking to the person who posted the images will probably get you feeble excuses, insincere apologies.... a waste of time.

There is a process for doing this. Make an appointment to see that person. Go in prepared. Document everything. Put a strong argument across based on fact, that they cannot dispute. Stand your ground, but do not get aggressive, this puts people on the defensive and this will get you absolutely nowhere fast - they will not be receptive. Negotiate your way to an outcome that suites both parties. Your demands would be easily met and the department would have at least some egg on its face. This would go some way to reducing the chances that this sort of thing does not happen again.
As others have mentioned, it would be better to settle this matter without conflict. If the Uni feels that they are dealing with a hard case they will probably cut you off, when it comes to your photography. Working with them will ensure that there is the possibility that they will want to use your images again in the future.

Then, supply them with images that they can use complete with copyright and your name somewhere on them. Let them use images that have been supplied by you, under an agreement, instead of those that have been ripped off. Ensure that they understand the conditions of use, if you decide to impose conditions. Those conditions may be as simple as ensuring that your name and copyright remain on those images without alteration and/or modification, and that department can otherwise display those images as they choose without modification and/or alteration. BTW, if you are going to post images on the web it may pay to add your name and copyright to the image. While not really necessary, it will remind them that it is the property of someone else.


Cheers

Matt