DSLRUsers.com

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:39 pm**

Figured if anyone would know it would be people here.

Friend picked up todays paper here in WA and saw his photo was taking up half the cover. He was never contacted and they have basically just pulled the photo from his facebook photo album and published it.

Does he have any rights?

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:05 pm**

Keri MacDonald ?

Does he have any rights?

maybe, but i would not hold my breath since facebook images can be considered 'fair use' in some parts of the world.

otherwise if your sure of a copyright breach just send them a invoice for 1500 bucks. (10x factor due to copyright infringement) :rotfl2:

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:49 pm**

yeah, his name appeared on the online version once he rang and asked to speak to the editor, they are now saying he has a family emergency and had to leave for the day when he rang back to see what was going to happen. its actually the second time its happened to him as hes in sales so is always on the road and always has a camera.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:50 pm**

He should contact them and tell them the image is a fake and that he put the flames in with Photoshop and he's going to contact a cuurent affairs on TV, and media watch, and tell them how the paper used fake images on the front page.

Or...he certainly should sent them an invoice for $1500.00 being for the perpetual use of the image as was verbally negotiated with him by an un-named employee of the paper.

I would hound the arrogant barsteds to the end of the Earth for doing what they bloody well know is immoral and illegal. Swine.I wonder if they also telephone tap?

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:26 pm**

He published it on Facebook?

In a resolution suitable for publication n print media?

And he then expects to retain some rights?

While I don't agree with what's happened, he needs to go and read FB's Ts&Cs. Then he needs to read them again, and again, and again.

Until he fully comprehends that in posting images there, (or pretty well anywhere on the internet) he loses all of his rights to that image.

Forever.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:55 pm**

Note I am not an expert on Australian Copyright law. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that newspapers can use any photo for the purpose of reporting news without infringing the copyright, providing the photographer is acknowledged. So in this case, and if my suspicion is true, then there is nothing your friend can do. Its fair use (actually fair dealing according to the Copyright Act. Just found the link).

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:11 pm**

hark40 wrote:Note I am not an expert on Australian Copyright law. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that newspapers can use any photo for the purpose of reporting news without infringing the copyright, providing the photographer is acknowledged. So in this case, and if my suspicion is true, then there is nothing your friend can do. Its fair use (actually fair dealing according to the Copyright Act. Just found the link).

IANAL either but I believe using a photograph on the front page (in fact making it half the front page) constitutes commercial use – they're using it to sell the "newspaper". They would most likely have to pay the rights holder (whoever that may be, probably Facebook), or at least obtain their permission.

Cheers
Steffen.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:39 pm**

I thought the rights to the image were retained by the photographer. The fact that it has been published somewhere does not destroy copyright as far as I am aware.

It's a bit naughty of the newspaper to pinch it without attribution let alone without paying a fee.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:12 pm**

The main exceptions to copyright infringement in Australia come under the general heading fair dealing. Fair dealing is comparable to the United States' fair use, is a use of a work specifically recognised as not being a copyright violation. However, unlike fair use, in order to be a fair dealing under Australian law a use must fall within one of range of specific purposes. These purposes vary by type of work, but the possibilities are:

review or criticism
research or study
news-reporting
judicial proceedings or professional legal advice
parody or satire (added by the Copyright Amendment Act 2006)

In order for a certain use to be a fair dealing, it must fall within one of these purposes and must also be 'fair'. What is fair will depend on all the circumstances, including the nature of the work, the nature of the use and the effect of the use on any commercial market for the work.

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 42
Fair dealing for purpose of reporting news

(1) A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if:

(a) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and a sufficient acknowledgement of the work is made; or

(b) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news by means of a communication or in a cinematograph film.

(2) The playing of a musical work in the course of reporting news by means of a communication or in a cinematograph film is not a fair dealing with the work for the purposes of this section if the playing of the work does not form part of the news being reported.

given teh fact they have not credited the photographer on teh cover image (ii am assumign here since i am going off the image in this thread only) then i reckon you might have some grounds to send them a invoice.

Personally I would just send them the invoice, 30 days to pay or be referred to the debt collectors. :rotfl2:

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:51 pm**

Simon
Ask your friend to log onto this site and leave a link to your post for media watch. Jonathon Holmes loves this stuff.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tipoffs.htm

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:42 am**

Regardless of the law, this is obviously a robbery. :roll:

I hope you will be able to at least expose them or punish them while getting your friend some exposure. That tip off link looks tantalising.

On second thought, I reckon they might try to puslish a one line apology/credit on the 3rd page footer and try to get away with it... :evil:

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:37 am**

While the copyright laws are all well and good, we must remember the fact that he's posted the photo on Facebook.

Once that's been done, he has agreed to permit Facebook to publish the image under their terms and conditions, whatever they might be. My suspicion is that, once he's agreed to their terms, he has already assigned any copyright he might have had in that image to Facebook, and therefore any action whereby he's going to try to claim copyright ownership in that image will fail.

In this instance, Facebook's Ts&Cs will overrule any standard copyright rules, because he's posted his image there. That is the underlying basis for this situation, people.

We might not agree with what the paper has done, but I suspect they may well be within their rights, because of the active (and, IMHO, silly) decision by the photographer to use Facebook as a means to post his images.

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:47 pm**

obzelite wrote:yeah, his name appeared on the online version once he rang and asked to speak to the editor, they are now saying he has a family emergency and had to leave for the day when he rang back to see what was going to happen. its actually the second time its happened to him as hes in sales so is always on the road and always has a camera.

probably 'cause they realised that they have to credit the source, did the print version have any mention of his name or source???

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:16 pm**

bumpity bump, let us know the outcome either way.

Posted: **Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:09 pm**

I suspect the facebook clause will mean there isn't much to be done legally

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:19 am**

Well, even in that case, does the paper have an agreement with Facebook for free use of Facebook images?

Perhaps Facebook could make something of it?

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:26 am**

aim54x wrote:I suspect the facebook clause will mean there isn't much to be done legally

Exactly.

photohiker wrote:Well, even in that case, does the paper have an agreement with Facebook for free use of Facebook images?

I doubt there's any need for that. Facebook most likely assumes most rights, and would permit free use of anything published.

In other words, once it's on FaceBook, it's effectively in the public domain. That's been my point all along.

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:10 pm**

Sh%^. It's a good lesson to learn about posting pictures on Facebook.

Please let us know the outcome. This is a very irritating situation to say the least.

DSLRUsers.com

unauthorised use by a newspaper

unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper

Re: unauthorised use by a newspaper