A friend of mine is in a lot of legal troubles and the news papers and nj.com have been using one of my copyrighted wedding pictures even though I sent them an email stating I had that picture copyrighted. It pisses my wife off because I'm sure you all know how women are about their weddings. What can be done about this?

not a lawyer here, but I would send send a paper (certified and return receipt requested) cease and desist letter threatening to sue for $1 million dollars.

 

If they don't stop, find a lawyer who will work for a percentage of the proceeds.

Lawyer cease and desist letter.

 

This is actually a really big issue right now.

Picture paper is using

 

 

My copyrighted wedding picture. They just cropped my other buddy out

 

not sure but I'd ask what to do on on potn, tons of knowledgeable people on that forum

I think a letter like others mentioned and proof of copy-write , you have to remember these news agencies probably get tons of letters from people to stop different things without any level of proof. They have to know you mean business and your legit

A friend of mine is in a lot of legal troubles and the news papers and nj.com have been using one of my copyrighted wedding pictures even though I sent them an email stating I had that picture copyrighted. It pisses my wife off because I'm sure you all know how women are about their weddings. What can be done about this?

 

I'm a little confused, so please forgive me if I ask blunt questions to get some answers so as to enable me to answer your question better. Some background: I'm a professional photographer and have delt with copyright issues in the past.

 

Now to the questions:

 

1. Are YOU the Photographer that took this image, or is this image from YOUR wedding and a Pro Photog actually owns the image?

 

2. How did the media get the image and who gave it to them and did they get paid for supplying it?

 

3. What do you consider to be the value of this image, since if you sue for infringement you need to place a value on the image. Is the guy in the image a famous celebrity?

 

 

If the image is from YOUR wedding, and YOU didn't take the image, YOU don't own any copyright. The Photog that took the image does, unless and until the copyright was officially transferred to you in writing by the Photog. Up until that point, the Photog owns the image and can sell it in either paper or electronic form. If no formal agreement was ever signed and all you have is a disk of images to make prints, the original Photog gave YOU permission to make copies, BUT did NOT transfer the copyright.

 

I hope I answered your question. I read and re-read your posts and I might be wrong in my assumptions. Please let me know the answers to the above questions so I may better help you.

 

Suing for copyright infringement is a long and arduous process. Media outlets have Lawyers on staff and the little guy often loses.......

 

Dave

I've done some pro photography too. The only question I have to add is if you took the photo how and when did you copyright it.

The use by a news outlet considered fair use

Bad news is , if the image is newsworthy , as in of editorial value and appears in newsprint... the paper can legally use the image.

 

By copyright law , the minute a photographer clicks a picture they are the owner of the image even if it contains your likeness. You are protected in the area of what they can do with it without a model release. They can't use it to promote themselves..but they can publish it freely without your permission in an editorial format. The only time they can't use your likeness is if you were in a place where total privacy was expected ( i.e they took a photo from the street of you in your home ) . The other way they can't use it editorially is if it is telling a story that is not true. Such as they say something like "criminals in the park beware " and they show you sitting on a park bench as a stock photo .

 

Now , since they were wedding photos , I would need to see the contract you signed .

 

Even if you have those shots copyrighted , someone you gave the pic to or someone who took it off FB or something can legally give it to the newspaper and the newspaper in turn can legally use the image. What they can't do , if you own the copyright , is display it in a gallery or use it on their website to promote their business or something.

 

Sorry , I know that is not the answer you wanted to hear. But when it comes to the news the 1st amendment gives them and a photographer a lot of leeway .

The use by a news outlet considered fair use

 

I was going to also bring this issue to light, once I learned some answers to my questions, such as HOW the media got a hold of the image.

 

Nice addition to the thread, by the way!

Sorry if that was not clear , listening to a crappy webinar while typing it. If you have any questions feel free to ask. I have a degree from New York Institiute Of Photography and we covered copyright law extensively.

 

The only place people have some insulation from stuff like this is California , and that is minimal insulation at that . That is due to the paparazzi overstepping the line.

I was going to also bring this issue to light, once I learned some answers to my questions, such as HOW the media got a hold of the image.

 

Nice addition to the thread, by the way!

 

Yea, I actually remember that picture posted in this forum back when that guy got into trouble. If I remember right there was a murder involved.

Fair use is correct. I found the article on NJ.com. If there were legal recourse available I don't understand why you would want to associate yourself with someone charged with a double homicide. I'd agree he in serious legal trobule.

Bad news is , if the image is newsworthy , as in of editorial value and appears in newsprint... the paper can legally use the image.

 

By copyright law , the minute a photographer clicks a picture they are the owner of the image even if it contains your likeness. You are protected in the area of what they can do with it without a model release. They can't use it to promote themselves..but they can publish it freely without your permission in an editorial format. The only time they can't use your likeness is if you were in a place where total privacy was expected ( i.e they took a photo from the street of you in your home ) . The other way they can't use it editorially is if it is telling a story that is not true. Such as they say something like "criminals in the park beware " and they show you sitting on a park bench as a stock photo .

 

Now , since they were wedding photos , I would need to see the contract you signed .

 

Even if you have those shots copyrighted , someone you gave the pic to or someone who took it off FB or something can legally give it to the newspaper and the newspaper in turn can legally use the image. What they can't do , if you own the copyright , is display it in a gallery or use it on their website to promote their business or something.

 

Sorry , I know that is not the answer you wanted to hear. But when it comes to the news the 1st amendment gives them and a photographer a lot of leeway .

 

Sandy,

 

EVERY wedding contract that one of my clients ever signed had a blanket model release covering the Studio for every image taken that day allowing the Studio to use the images for self-promotion, display, advertising, etc., in any form what-so-ever, (web site, sample album, direct mail piece, hand-out @ bridal shows, price lists, framing guides, etc., etc.) either by electronic or other means. So that would cover me if I built a sample album or wall display at my expense and a year later the couple got divorced. My contract also states that they have to feed me if I work more than 4 continuous hours, and provide me with non-alcoholic beverages and at least 15 minutes of "off time" for consuming these items. Even the NEBS standard wedding photo contract has terms for studio usage for samples and advertising, etc.

 

All of your other points are spot-on, and you hit the nail on the head!

 

Dave

Right , that is what I meant . Any wedding contract will usually have a blanket usage agreement for the photographer. For all other types of photography..say for instance I took a picture of a woman sitting by a pond and sold it as art or news..I am covered by the 1st amendment to use that photo for art or news. But if I put that shot on my website and said "portraits 50 dollars by me" or was using it to advertise a product , like say I sold it to a shampoo company to do a magazine ad or something , I could get in a heap of trouble.

 

All my portrait sittings have model releases included in them, same way wedding packages do

 

In a nutshell to OP , there really is not much you can do besides be incredibly incredibly angry with whoever shared that picture with the press :/

Right , that is what I meant . Any wedding contract will usually have a blanket usage agreement for the photographer. For all other types of photography..say for instance I took a picture of a woman sitting by a pond and sold it as art or news..I am covered by the 1st amendment to use that photo for art or news. But if I put that shot on my website and said "portraits 50 dollars by me" or was using it to advertise a product , like say I sold it to a shampoo company to do a magazine ad or something , I could get in a heap of trouble.

 

All my portrait sittings have model releases included in them, same way wedding packages do

 

In a nutshell to OP , there really is not much you can do besides be incredibly incredibly angry with whoever shared that picture with the press :/

 

All excellant points, especially the Shampoo Company Ad! Yes Girl, you'd be in a HEAP of dog poo!

Thanks Dave The copyright and business laws are still fresh on my mind.

 

Shawn , if I were you I would probably kill the FB friend link for now , and delete any other pics you have of him on web display anywhere. Unless they are "right click protected" or have "do not copy" emblazoned across them there is no "perceived privacy" which means you took no measures to prevent copying so they could easily continue to fish your social network for more info and photos. Know what I mean?

Wow, article just came up on my feed...

Part of my contract with my photographer is that I own the pictures.

It really does not matter though. It would only matter if they were using it to advertise a product or service. Just looked at the article , and he was using that as his FB profile photo. Even more so in that case , you have zero recourse . Personally, I would concentrate on disassociating myself from that photo if anything. Innocent until proven guilty , sure , but were I you I don't think I would bring any public attention to any association you have with him , unless he is a good friend and you feel he is innocent of all charges or something. That part is JMO , but the fact that copyright would not apply here is not opinion , it is an educated answer. Sorry :/

I'm not looking for some crazy lawsuit I just want em to stop using it. I haven't spoken to him since a couple days before he was arrested. He was a very good friend of mine but I don't want to get drug into this case for any reason what so ever. Last thing I need is getting drug from detective to detective getting questioned about an event I had nothing to do with. My views are simple if he did he deserves what he gets. If he didn't I hope they proove that but I have to put my family first.

As far as Facebook I kept reporting his page to Facebook and reporting all the pics until Facebook shut his page down. I had friends and family of the victims harassing me just because I was in pics with him and wrote on his wall. I didn't pursue any legal actions against them just for the fact that they had every right to be pissed they just need to point the anger at someone else. I did however report em to Facebook for harassment.

This is the biggest issue with FB and with any public venue where you display your pics .

 

There is an icon when you download to FB. It is a feature that allows your "friends" to download any pics you post. There is no way to turn this feature off. Therefore , there is no perceived privacy ..so if your friend downloads a pic off your page your hands are pretty much tied.We(the photography community) have had this come up so many times , because people steal photography all the time. You will see some photographers that use FB put watermarks that say "do not copy or crop" across their images and such ..but it has been proven time and time again that it won;t hold up because you are posting and making the photos public ( in the case of a photographer) or available to 300 or so friends on a personal page. When photographers have a website , the images are usually right click copy protected or are digimarked which means they should get blocked if people try to share. But when you are dealing with free sites like FB , you have no such protection. So really what i would say to anyone is if you put a photo on FB , assume you are giving everyone on your friend list permission to copy it and make it their own. The only way you would have recourse is if they copied your picture and ran a product campaign ad , if they photoshopped your head on , say , Kirstie Alley's body and published it , or if they used your picture to tell a story that had nothing to do with you. Like if they took your friend's picture from your wedding and did an article about the rising costs of heart medication or something and he was not in fact a heart patient.

 

Aside from that , FB may step in to stop harassment and may shut a page down or something...but as of now there is not much you can do about the papers and such. I feel bad for your wife , I'm sure she is very upset about it. Wedding pictures are hugely hugely important to the Bride .which is 80% of what makes wedding photography tough to begin with!

I'm not looking for some crazy lawsuit I just want em to stop using it. I haven't spoken to him since a couple days before he was arrested. He was a very good friend of mine but I don't want to get drug into this case for any reason what so ever. Last thing I need is getting drug from detective to detective getting questioned about an event I had nothing to do with. My views are simple if he did he deserves what he gets. If he didn't I hope they proove that but I have to put my family first.

 

NEVER going to happen! They have it, they've used it and will continue to do so every chance they get, every time he makes news: bail hearing denied, motion delivered to the Court, the trial itself, human interest stories of the victims, et al. Your friend is BIG NEWS. Where the image was taken is of NO consequence what-so-ever.

 

As far as FB is concerned, it sounds like you did all that you could, short of pulling your own FB page down. Your friends images are forever linked to you if you're in them and as long as you have a FB page with the same name as the links, those images are searchable.

 

I'm sorry to tell you the bad news, but it seems to me the best thing would have been to not even bring this whole thing to light on a public forum.

 

Good luck and I hope that justice is served and the real truth comes to light.

 

Dave

I'm not ashamed at all that he is my friend. If I didn't have a wife and kids to think about I would have visited him. I do not support what he was accused of doing in anyway but the way I look at it is I know he would have stuck by me so I'm not gonna just throw him to the wolves. If he is found not guilty I'll be the first guy to buy him a beer. If he's found guilty he will probably spend the rest of his life in jail so the issue will fix itself.

I'm not ashamed at all that he is my friend. If I didn't have a wife and kids to think about I would have visited him. I do not support what he was accused of doing in anyway but the way I look at it is I know he would have stuck by me so I'm not gonna just throw him to the wolves. If he is found not guilty I'll be the first guy to buy him a beer. If he's found guilty he will probably spend the rest of his life in jail so the issue will fix itself.

 

I hear ya brother. I have been in two similar situations. Check your PM's

How exactly will you be involved in this from a picture?

How exactly will you be involved in this from a picture?

 

Not from the pic but if I showed up to visit him or was contacting him. The police still don't know the motive.

It all starts with having your attorney issue a cease and desist letter claiming ownership of the image. I'm going through the same thing now with a design firm in Boston and a national restaurant chain at the shore . In several past instances, the cease and desist letter is all that it took to rectify the matter.

 

Sent from my Droid Razr Maxx using Tapatalk 2