[Mike Cash]

Personally I'd get either a notarized letter, or better yet a letter through a lawyer stating the facts. And that you may press charges under the copyright law

Let us say "file suit" (civil case) instead of "press charges" (criminal case).

[JCSullivan]

Signing the photo as Little Laker suggested sounds sooooo good but be careful to "damaging private property" situation.

Good luck Max - it is such an unfair situation you're in.

[ftpaddict]

Burn the entire place down.



(I'm not joking)

[Lowell Goudge]

In my opinion, you probably have no rights at all to the photo any more.

Having sent it out to someone with no copywrite or disclaimer, your image is probably now public domain free for anyone to use.

What I think you should do is ask the person you initially sent it to, if he gave the images, not just yours but all of them to the store for use, and that since they were taken by local photographers, he might suggest the store consider giving the photographers credit for their work.

After that, let it drop, and take the experience forward as to what you do for protection of your images.

[Mike Cash]

In my opinion, you probably have no rights at all to the photo any more.

Having sent it out to someone with no copywrite or disclaimer, your image is probably now public domain free for anyone to use.

Just what on earth do you base that on? There is nothing that requires specific registration or markings in order to secure copyright protection.

Go through the U.S. Copyright Office information page that Slick linked and you will see how totally off base your conjecture is.

[Blue]

In my opinion, you probably have no rights at all to the photo any more.

Having sent it out to someone with no copywrite or disclaimer, your image is probably now public domain free for anyone to use.

What I think you should do is ask the person you initially sent it to, if he gave the images, not just yours but all of them to the store for use, and that since they were taken by local photographers, he might suggest the store consider giving the photographers credit for their work.

After that, let it drop, and take the experience forward as to what you do for protection of your images.

If it were a patent issue, you would be correct. This is different. There should be a procedure on campus for grievances , ethics, academic honesty etc. Does your campus have and ombudsman and or provost? Maybe you should contact the faculty senate office about where to start.

Edit: One other thing: In some states, official business conducted via email can be requested as long as it doesn't have student or personal info in it. Private schools would be different. Regardless, your email to the person you sent it to is a piece of evidence.

Also, did you ask here who this professional photographer was that she hired?
Finally, is there anything unique that is in your photo that would make it unlikely to duplicate such a a combination of people at a scene at the Student Union?

[MRRiley]

Well you should, as others have suggested, talk to the guy you sent the images to and ask if he provided them. If he did, scold him thoroughly and then tell him the store manager is misrepresenting the photo(s). Ask him to contact the store's corporate offices and put pressure on them to acknowledge your credits or come forward with real evidence that the store's photographer did indeed take the photo(s). This will prove very hard, particularly if other local photographers come forward with their own original images and EXIF data.

Doing it it this way places much more pressure on the store to comply and places them and their contract in a precarious position if they refuse. It also lets the university's money do the talking rather than yours.

-----------

Lowell - E-mailing a photo to someone who then releases it without authorization in no way negates the creator's copyright and does not place it i n the "public domain". Only the copyright holder can do that by NOT contesting misuse or misappropriation of his image. Copyright is immediate upon creation but can be lost if the creator does not protest when infringement is discovered. This is why Alan needs to protest vigourously now for if he doesn't your interpretation could indeed become the case.

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 08-14-2008 at 06:03 AM.

[PeterAM]

If you think that you are covered from a copyright standpoint and want to pursue this, find out if the company that runs the store is a public company. Further, see if they are doing any printing on demand for courses at the school or do anything else involved with the usage of other people's intellectual property. If that's the case, direct your correspondence to the President and the Chairman of the Board, pointing out that violating your copyright isn't a very good idea for a company that is dependent on working relationships with institutions of higher learning.

[Lowell Goudge]

To all those who questioned my view that the image should be considereed public domain, while legally you may be correct, what I wonder about is the time and effort and money to correct the situation against the payback.

The OP already admitted that although it was a good image, he had many better ones, and part of following a civil action is really mostly about lost income due to the infringement.

I can see following the issue to make the point, but I would not spend a cent to do that. I just don't see the payback.

At the end of the day, what is the objective, to have your name on the photo, or to make a reputation that you can be a real pain. Now on the otherhand, if the "photographer" the store hired made money on the image, then it is different, But how to prove that, and not spend a fortune int he process.

If there was financial gain, then again the best option in my view would be to find all the photographers who's photos appeard in posters and get them all to rais a similar complaint. One person on thier own is a very little voice, a group tends to add not only credibility, but to difuse the impact on your reputation.

Otherwise, let it go, end be wiser in the future.

[Mike Cash]

Financial gain is entirely irrelevant to copyright. This is something I quite often see from "fansub" folks who make their own (typically horrid) translations of Japanese "anime" (cartoons), add the subtitles, and swap them around. They think that since they aren't doing it for money then they aren't violating copyright.

He can reasonably expect at the very least to be paid what the pro they supposedly hired got for the other photos, on a pro-rated basis. Think about it....somebody else got paid for making all those other photos displayed in the store, whether they directly led to financial gain for the store or not. All he wanted was his name on the photo of his that they misappropriated.

I'd either have my name on it or take them to small claims court, suing for whatever amount the pro got per displayed photo, or the maximum amount you can go for in small claims, if that is smaller. No need for a lawyer.

[Lowell Goudge]

Financial gain is entirely irrelevant to copyright. This is something I quite often see from "fansub" folks who make their own (typically horrid) translations of Japanese "anime" (cartoons), add the subtitles, and swap them around. They think that since they aren't doing it for money then they aren't violating copyright.

He can reasonably expect at the very least to be paid what the pro they supposedly hired got for the other photos, on a pro-rated basis. Think about it....somebody else got paid for making all those other photos displayed in the store, whether they directly led to financial gain for the store or not. All he wanted was his name on the photo of his that they misappropriated.

I'd either have my name on it or take them to small claims court, suing for whatever amount the pro got per displayed photo, or the maximum amount you can go for in small claims, if that is smaller. No need for a lawyer.

I think you mis understood, I meant financial gain of the "photograper" not the store.

While I am not as concerned as many apparently here about ownership of my images, and am not ever intending to sell photos, etc, I am looking at this from a practical point. There was an article in a photo magazine about copywrite and the cost of following through with protecting your rights on the "image that got away". While I understand the desire to get your name on the image and credit for it, is it really worth it in the long term.

This will always be a passonate debate, and I am quite certain that many here who are making some form o f a living with photography disagree, but I prefer to look at things from a real gain oint of view. There is such a thing as winning the battle but losing the war, and it is a real question of where to draw the line. Many here have decided that is not in the same place as me, and I have no problem with that.

[Mike Cash]

I understand your point a bit better now, thanks.

But whether it is a photo or just manual labor, what they have basically done here is pay one fellow for his services while stealing the services of another and then telling him to bugger off without even showing the basic courtesy of acknowledging that they have benefitted from his labor (photo).

It's sort of like if I, out of kindness, help my neighbor with his yardwork. And then he decides to hire it out while he sits in the house....and still expects me to help (for free) with the yardwork.

I'm sure the OP would have gladly donated use of the photo just to have it displayed in the store with his name attached. But they're paying somebody else to mow the photographic grass, having him help for free, and denying that he even did anything at all.

I'd be pissed. Not about the photo. Pretty much anybody that wants to use a photo I've taken is welcome to it. It's the principle of the thing that would tick me off. I'm one small-hearted, petty S.O.B. when the urge strikes me.

[Nesster]

One question you didn't yet answer - what quality is the poster? If it were blown up from a 800x600 email image, I'd be surprised if the poster's quality was that good. I might not want my name on it at that, unless we then produced a proper quality item.

If it looks to be higher rez than you'd expect from the email copy you sent, I'd consider how else the image got out, either that or maybe it is possible, as unlikely as it seems, that someone else managed to take a nearly identical photo.

[MRRiley]

...
While I am not as concerned as many apparently here about ownership of my images, and am not ever intending to sell photos, etc,
...

Lowell,

Of course it is your choice if you never intend to sell any of your photos or make a dime off of them, BUT...

How would you feel if someone took an image that you shot and sold it to National Geographic, got paid thousands of dollars for it and got his name in the credits?

Alan's situation is of course on a much smaller scale but large battles are made of small skirmishes fought by individual soldiers.

[Lowell Goudge]

Lowell,

Of course it is your choice if you never intend to sell any of your photos or make a dime off of them, BUT...

How would you feel if someone took an image that you shot and sold it to National Geographic, got paid thousands of dollars for it and got his name in the credits?

Alan's situation is of course on a much smaller scale but large battles are made of small skirmishes fought by individual soldiers.

I think I answered this earlier, if there was a substantial earnings off of the image, there is value chasing it, I am just note sure here, that the value is worth the effort, and cost. And while large battles are made up of a lot of small ones fought by individuals, a small win at all costs can sometimes result in a much larger loss later.

We can discuss it all day, and in the end it is up to Alan to figure out what he does. I think, however in this case, he would be best served by keeping his efforts low key but direct and professional (keep lawyers out of it), and if at all possible, get the other photographers who's works are posted involved, because the voice of teh group will be heard more quickly than that of one individual.