pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Got sued for images with logo (editorial) ... seriously ?  (Read 5982 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 23, 2019, 11:58 »
0
Hello !
I don't get it. A big Airline company is sending me an e-mail about images sold and used by whoever with their staff and logos. I DID and have those images in my folio marked as editorial and accepted by Shutterstock. I did 35$ out of it so I'm not planning on keeping thoses images Online BUT I was wondering... Does all companies can simply working with the fear and thretning contributors with big amount of money to be paid if they don't remove the images from all agencies, etc ?

Seriously ?
I feel bad removing them cuz that mean all the editorial content is just a matter of the company asking the images to be removed or not.

Images a a mix of airplanes. Inside, outside, the wing with the logo and the Sun... porthole, etc. >:(


ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2019, 12:30 »
+6
Don't reply directly. Send any correspondence to SS to deal with on your behalf.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2019, 14:44 by ShadySue »

« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2019, 13:10 »
0
are you saying shutterstock gave your name/contact info to the airline? and that your content was marked as "editorial"?

seems very strange... what are they suing for?

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2019, 14:53 »
+2
I doubt SS gave the airline the photographers contact info. The company probably looked up his name and found his email through his website.

« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2019, 15:01 »
0
I would think US / western airlines would understand editorial content is protected by the first amendment aka freedom of speech and freedom of the press.  Was it a foreign airline?   

« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2019, 18:14 »
+6
I've always wondered how many people buy editorial photos/footage without really knowing what that means and what the usage restrictions are. It seems like editorial sells better than it should if people were actually only using it for editorial.


steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2019, 18:42 »
+3
However... The poster referred to images inside the plane of the staff and images through the window. Unless you were give permission to take and sell images on the private property of the airline, then you have no legal right to place the images for sale under any sort of license. You can't sell an editorial license for an image that you didn't have permission to take in the first place. Taking a plane from a private airport (and some are privately owned and operated I believe) may fall into the same category although less risky.

Steve

« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2019, 18:45 »
+2
However... The poster referred to images inside the plane of the staff and images through the window. Unless you were give permission to take and sell images on the private property of the airline, then you have no legal right to place the images for sale under any sort of license. You can't sell an editorial license for an image that you didn't have permission to take in the first place.

That's incorrect.

« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2019, 18:54 »
+1
However... The poster referred to images inside the plane of the staff and images through the window. Unless you were give permission to take and sell images on the private property of the airline, then you have no legal right to place the images for sale under any sort of license. You can't sell an editorial license for an image that you didn't have permission to take in the first place. Taking a plane from a private airport (and some are privately owned and operated I believe) may fall into the same category although less risky.

Steve

So waht you are saying is that there is a risk to actually do what site allow you to do ?
... and sell it...
What I did was to take some picture from inside the plane during the traveling. Pictures are allowed... selling them... who ask ?!
Fact is that I think someone did not use those images as editorial like it should and Air Canada (the copany) are upset about it.
The fact is that the bad usage of those image is not my problem as I undersand.

« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2019, 18:58 »
+1
This is why you have business insurance.  My insurer went to bat for me and defended me against a model when a buyer used an image against the license terms.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2019, 19:50 »
0
Quote
Quote from: steheap on Today at 18:42
However... The poster referred to images inside the plane of the staff and images through the window. Unless you were give permission to take and sell images on the private property of the airline, then you have no legal right to place the images for sale under any sort of license. You can't sell an editorial license for an image that you didn't have permission to take in the first place. Taking a plane from a private airport (and some are privately owned and operated I believe) may fall into the same category although less risky.

Steve

So waht you are saying is that there is a risk to actually do what site allow you to do ?
... and sell it...
What I did was to take some picture from inside the plane during the traveling. Pictures are allowed... selling them... who ask ?!
Fact is that I think someone did not use those images as editorial like it should and Air Canada (the copany) are upset about it.
The fact is that the bad usage of those image is not my problem as I undersand.

Sometimes the agencies will reject images because they don't believe you have the right to take the photo - the thread recently on Disney locations was a case in point. I personally think that if the airline believes that you took the images inside their plane with their employees, then they are definitely within their rights to stop you selling them and displaying them. When you buy a ticket you sign up to all sorts of legal conditions - one might be to not use the airplane for commercial photography (I don't don't mean editorial usage here - just taking pictures with a financial gain in mind). The agencies can't catch every possible legal issue which is why you are ultimately liable.

Perhaps others have another view, but that is why the airline are taking that stance - nothing to do with first amendment rights. Those apply to a public place, not a private location.

Steve

« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2019, 20:53 »
+3
This is why you have business insurance.  My insurer went to bat for me and defended me against a model when a buyer used an image against the license terms.

Would you mind sharing in more detail? I'm curious about what happened. I've had past models discover that a buyer had misused an photo of him and put it on a adult adultery website, even though he was fully clothed. I asked iStock about it and they said it was within the terms of the license. This was probably 8 years ago. I sent an email to the adultery website and heard nothing back. I told the model I tried to get them to take it off but had no success. He just lived with it and moved on.

« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2019, 07:25 »
+1
Quote
Quote from: steheap on Today at 18:42
However... The poster referred to images inside the plane of the staff and images through the window. Unless you were give permission to take and sell images on the private property of the airline, then you have no legal right to place the images for sale under any sort of license. You can't sell an editorial license for an image that you didn't have permission to take in the first place. Taking a plane from a private airport (and some are privately owned and operated I believe) may fall into the same category although less risky.

Steve

So waht you are saying is that there is a risk to actually do what site allow you to do ?
... and sell it...
What I did was to take some picture from inside the plane during the traveling. Pictures are allowed... selling them... who ask ?!
Fact is that I think someone did not use those images as editorial like it should and Air Canada (the copany) are upset about it.
The fact is that the bad usage of those image is not my problem as I undersand.

Sometimes the agencies will reject images because they don't believe you have the right to take the photo - the thread recently on Disney locations was a case in point. I personally think that if the airline believes that you took the images inside their plane with their employees, then they are definitely within their rights to stop you selling them and displaying them. When you buy a ticket you sign up to all sorts of legal conditions - one might be to not use the airplane for commercial photography (I don't don't mean editorial usage here - just taking pictures with a financial gain in mind). The agencies can't catch every possible legal issue which is why you are ultimately liable.

Perhaps others have another view, but that is why the airline are taking that stance - nothing to do with first amendment rights. Those apply to a public place, not a private location.

Steve

It's not that simple. Many legal systems will acknowledge the editorial character of the picture, and therefore consider it journalistic content, independently from the photographer's status, as you don't need to be a journalist to do journalism.

Then, actually, most of the photography restrictions can be ignored, as it would fall under the freedom of the press principle.

The last thing the company could sue for would be for any damage caused by the picture, but unless the metadata contained something insulting (which is very unlikely), it's gonna be hard to do so.

But once again, this depends on a country's legal system.
 

« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2019, 07:34 »
+3
I was a photo editor for years and dealt with tons of issues like this. 99%  of the time it is the words (and context) used with the photo that cause the issue (and lawsuit)/ Companies tend to go after the source to try and eliminate the photo. I worked at a national newspaper and I received calls and emails all the time asking me to remove photos that offended a company/person etc. Sorry no can do!

« Reply #14 on: July 24, 2019, 14:33 »
0
This is why you have business insurance.  My insurer went to bat for me and defended me against a model when a buyer used an image against the license terms.

Would you mind sharing in more detail? I'm curious about what happened. I've had past models discover that a buyer had misused an photo of him and put it on a adult adultery website, even though he was fully clothed. I asked iStock about it and they said it was within the terms of the license. This was probably 8 years ago. I sent an email to the adultery website and heard nothing back. I told the model I tried to get them to take it off but had no success. He just lived with it and moved on.

This wasn't a shadowy European site or something.  It was a Fortune 500 company that was easy to (legally) go after.  I was just incidental.

« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2019, 03:20 »
0
Thank you all for you help.
I don't khow how illegal it could be to take pictures through the porthole of the wings+logo when there was at the same time a photo competition on Instagram organized by the same company... asking people to take in photo of what they see through that dirty plastic & scratched window.
They accuse me of selling the image and to used their brand like if they were one of my clients... which when you understand and read what editorial mean... you can't accuse a photographer the above. They don't accuse me for the picture I took, but for the usage I did with.

They asked me to remove the images - what I did... And they ask me to contact the clients to stop using the images... what I can't !
Also (and the most impossible): they want me to agree that what I did was illegal - which is not. I understand they don't feel good knowing people to make money with their brand, BUT... illegal... nope.

I just want this to close, images removed... I hope I won't have to deal with the court since this is a big waste of time and money. Oh and they ask 20 000$ per image used (25 images) which is again ridiculous.

-

What I understand is that an employee got recognized a the Reader's Digest post explaining 15 thing that you must not do on a plane. Curiously enough, there is no mention of taking pictures ;)
https://www.readersdigest.ca/travel/travel-tips/never-say-to-flight-attendants/
"Dont argue" it saids.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2019, 03:24 by aetb »

« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2019, 05:51 »
0
Well mystery solved how they got your name.

As a fellow Canuck I am very interested in your story. I wonder if this is just another example of Air Canada flexing their muscles and trying to intimidate you or are they serious.


« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2019, 19:22 »
+2
They are - I hate people like that.....
I could probably sue them because of the stress and time they cost me.

« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2019, 03:00 »
+2
Did you contact Shutterstock about this? If they sold the user licenses, SS Legal should deal with this on your behalf.

« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2019, 06:44 »
+1
I was a photo editor for years and dealt with tons of issues like this. 99%  of the time it is the words (and context) used with the photo that cause the issue (and lawsuit)/ Companies tend to go after the source to try and eliminate the photo. I worked at a national newspaper and I received calls and emails all the time asking me to remove photos that offended a company/person etc. Sorry no can do!

lol. Yes, we'll take the photo off the already published paper ... twats.

However... The poster referred to images inside the plane of the staff and images through the window. Unless you were give permission to take and sell images on the private property of the airline, then you have no legal right to place the images for sale under any sort of license. You can't sell an editorial license for an image that you didn't have permission to take in the first place. Taking a plane from a private airport (and some are privately owned and operated I believe) may fall into the same category although less risky.

Steve

Righht.... no ... Editorial usage is pretty much everything you can see. If you work at a newspaper or something for instance, you don't need permission from people or about a property to take and use the photos... It's still polite but, fair game.

ShadySue

« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2019, 07:05 »
+2
Editorial usage is pretty much everything you can see. If you work at a newspaper or something for instance, you don't need permission from people or about a property to take and use the photos... It's still polite but, fair game.
That's not fully true here in the UK, and I'm sure it's very different in different countries.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2019, 09:15 »
+3
Quote
Editorial usage is pretty much everything you can see. If you work at a newspaper or something for instance, you don't need permission from people or about a property to take and use the photos... It's still polite but, fair game.
That's not fully true here in the UK, and I'm sure it's very different in different countries.

I don't believe it is true in the USA either. Try taking a picture of Minnie Mouse at Disney's theme park and post it for editorial use. The images in question in this thread were not newsworthy and were taken on private premises (the plane). Hence the photographer is open to being sued, in my view. But, of course, you can all take whatever risks you want!

Steve

« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2019, 09:35 »
0
Quote
Editorial usage is pretty much everything you can see. If you work at a newspaper or something for instance, you don't need permission from people or about a property to take and use the photos... It's still polite but, fair game.
That's not fully true here in the UK, and I'm sure it's very different in different countries.

I don't believe it is true in the USA either. Try taking a picture of Minnie Mouse at Disney's theme park and post it for editorial use. The images in question in this thread were not newsworthy and were taken on private premises (the plane). Hence the photographer is open to being sued, in my view. But, of course, you can all take whatever risks you want!

Steve

There is a difference between threatening to sue someone and actually suing someone. And of course frivolous lawsuits are thrown out all the time. A big company, like Air Canada or Disney can use their muscle and vast resources to intimidate people to do whatever they want because the threat of being sued by a big company is frankly terrifying. It doesn't mean they would be successful if you actually stood your ground.

At this point in the U.S. and Canada the rights of a corporation to protect it's property does not trump the first amendment, which includes the freedom of the press. If OP had the resources to fight, with or without SS to help, he would likely come out on top but who has the resources to fight such battles even if they're certain they would win the risk is too great which is how these entities get away with pushing people around.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2019, 09:40 »
0
I don't disagree with your point about threatening to sue versus actually doing it. And so legal definitions of what is protected don't mean you won't get these threats. Still not sure you are right about winning the case though:

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/do-individuals-have-first-amendment-rights-on-others-private-property/

Steve

« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2019, 10:09 »
0
I don't disagree with your point about threatening to sue versus actually doing it. And so legal definitions of what is protected don't mean you won't get these threats. Still not sure you are right about winning the case though:

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/do-individuals-have-first-amendment-rights-on-others-private-property/

Steve

That article doesn't specifically address freedom of the press. If I went onto Disney property, set up a stand and started preaching about how evil Disney is then you're right my freedom of speech on their private property is not protected and they can evict me.

Editorial photos are photo journalism and that's what the first amendment was designed to protect. What you suggest is that if a news worthy event occurs on Disney property the press has no right to cover it and present the story to the people. I don't think that would stand up in court.

In the OP's case I think the issue is not the inside of the aircraft but the face of the employee because she didn't give consent for usage. I have no doubt that would be the case with almost anyone photographed without consent for editorial photos but most people don't have the clout of Air Canada to back them up.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2019, 00:56 »
0
I think your freedom of speech would be protected if you did that at Disney... but their freedom to kick you off private proparty would also be protected. As would their freedom to call the police to report a trespassing if you declined.

« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2019, 07:22 »
+1
Quote
Editorial usage is pretty much everything you can see. If you work at a newspaper or something for instance, you don't need permission from people or about a property to take and use the photos... It's still polite but, fair game.
That's not fully true here in the UK, and I'm sure it's very different in different countries.

I don't believe it is true in the USA either. Try taking a picture of Minnie Mouse at Disney's theme park and post it for editorial use. The images in question in this thread were not newsworthy and were taken on private premises (the plane). Hence the photographer is open to being sued, in my view. But, of course, you can all take whatever risks you want!

Steve

There is a difference between threatening to sue someone and actually suing someone. And of course frivolous lawsuits are thrown out all the time. A big company, like Air Canada or Disney can use their muscle and vast resources to intimidate people to do whatever they want because the threat of being sued by a big company is frankly terrifying. It doesn't mean they would be successful if you actually stood your ground.

At this point in the U.S. and Canada the rights of a corporation to protect it's property does not trump the first amendment, which includes the freedom of the press. If OP had the resources to fight, with or without SS to help, he would likely come out on top but who has the resources to fight such battles even if they're certain they would win the risk is too great which is how these entities get away with pushing people around.

Just to be clear, Canada is a sovereign nation and is not part of the US. We do not defacto enjoy the benfit of broadly interpreted first amendment protections as we do not have a constitution.

In my experience the concept of editorial usage is more rigidly interpreted here than in the US. In the OP's case for example were it to be challenged in court I would not be at all surprised if the court took a more conservative view and sided with Air Canada. After all, the story was not about Air Canada specifically but a generalized fluff piece on airline passenger behavior. Furthermore it was published on a commercially incentivized site full of click bait with questionable journalistic merit to say the least. No offense to the OP, but shooting these sorts of subjects without written permission or model releases; and submitting them as editorial simply because they can't be licensed commercially is inherently risky. Without a clearly defined editorial agenda AND some control over the image's final use you as the photographer will always be exposed.


« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2019, 23:51 »
0
Quote
I don't khow how illegal it could be to take pictures through the porthole of the wings+logo when there was at the same time a photo competition on Instagram organized by the same company... asking people to take in photo of what they see through that dirty plastic & scratched window.

any contest or competition have own rules that apply.

also, it is up to the brand to allow or not materials from contest to be reproduced.
I have many times entered contests where I couldn't re-upload final work as personal samples.

:)

OM

« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2019, 19:52 »
0
Canukistan is a funny place......they have govt allowed cannabis but all their coinage and notes may not be photographed in any way. Years ago I had a shot of a Maple Leaf gold coin as a small part of an 'artistic' photo but SS were forced to delete it anyway by some Canuck ruling about currency which it wasn't (wel, not really)!

« Reply #29 on: August 01, 2019, 07:47 »
0
Canukistan is a funny place......they have govt allowed cannabis but all their coinage and notes may not be photographed in any way. Years ago I had a shot of a Maple Leaf gold coin as a small part of an 'artistic' photo but SS were forced to delete it anyway by some Canuck ruling about currency which it wasn't (wel, not really)!

What are you talking about OM, do a SIMPLE research (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/canada+money?pl=PPC_GOO_CA_BD-351482062029&cr=ec&kw=shutterstock&gclid=CjwKCAjwm4rqBRBUEiwAwaWjjExJNOImgyETMtZIIUhUhnGaF5c3NBJanskdryZHc8Eumd9HlOaWGRoC1sUQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds before writing stupidities. Your comment, besides being condescending is racist and brings nothing to the discussion. 

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #30 on: August 01, 2019, 13:45 »
0
...but all their coinage and notes may not be photographed in any way.

They can be shot in an editorial way. From SS: "Canadian banknotes and Canadian coins are only acceptable for editorial use".

« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2019, 01:15 »
0
see U of Alabama vs Daniel Moore.

judge ruled that photographers can sell photos that contain trademarks.

ShadySue

« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2019, 05:08 »
+1
see U of Alabama vs Daniel Moore.

judge ruled that photographers can sell photos that contain trademarks.

No, these were paintings/prints/calendars not photos sold as stock and I'd expect these to be differently treated in Law.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/06/12/appeals-court-backs-artist-lawsuit-watched-many-universities
How far does a ruling from an Alabama state judge spread? Not as far as Canada, I suspect.

« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2019, 00:39 »
0
I doubt SS gave the airline the photographers contact info. The company probably looked up his name and found his email through his website.

Confused here, wouldn't the airplane company contact ReaderDigest, the buyer of this picture ?
They will say we bought it from SS, then SS will say we got it from the Photographer ? right? or..
what is SS to do, when they get contacted about a possible infringement ? They state that they do not indemnify the photographer. 

« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2019, 07:52 »
0
Why you are contacted? Its clear that they should ask something to ss not yiu.. you are providing tge photo but ita ss who sell and ahould have understood thatmaybe it could create problem. Anyway if this was true practicamky every esitorial inagw with people can be found illegal. Dont care just point them out to ss and stop answering. Thats why i use a not real nick name flr stock first i dont want be seen as a stock cheap photographer by my clienta.. who pay me 000... 2 avoid to deal things like this. If they found something illegal in the use thye sue ss not me. An agency is an agency it should stand in front lof contriboutor

ShadySue

« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2019, 08:13 »
+2
An agency is an agency it should stand in front lof contriboutor
Don't know what SS does, but I read recently of a case when G paid off a claimant then claimed the money back from the contributor.
Looks like SS would likely do the same:
"j. upon making or learning of any claim that is inconsistent with any of the warranties or representations made by you, Shutterstock shall send you written notice of such claim, using the email address provided by you to Shutterstock, specifying the details of the claim as then known to Shutterstock. Pending the determination of such claim, Shutterstock may withhold from royalties and/or other compensation due to you hereunder, such sums as are reasonably related to the probable value of the claim as determined by Shutterstock. You will cooperate fully with Shutterstock in the defense of any such claims. You may participate in the defense of any claim through counsel of your selection at your own expense."
Though in the G case referred to, the contributor was not given the chance to defend the case, G went ahead and paid up then claimed the money back.

« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2019, 08:16 »
0
Quote
Pending the determination of such claim, Shutterstock may withhold from royalties and/or other compensation due to you hereunder, such sums as are reasonably related to the probable value of the claim as determined by Shutterstock. You will cooperate fully with Shutterstock in the defense of any such claims. You may participate in the defense of any claim through counsel of your selection at your own expense."

what a nice way to deal with image thieves and their growing number at Shutterstock.

oh wait... wrong case!

:P


OM

« Reply #37 on: August 24, 2019, 17:55 »
0
Canukistan is a funny place......they have govt allowed cannabis but all their coinage and notes may not be photographed in any way. Years ago I had a shot of a Maple Leaf gold coin as a small part of an 'artistic' photo but SS were forced to delete it anyway by some Canuck ruling about currency which it wasn't (wel, not really)!

What are you talking about OM, do a SIMPLE research (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/canada+money?pl=PPC_GOO_CA_BD-351482062029&cr=ec&kw=shutterstock&gclid=CjwKCAjwm4rqBRBUEiwAwaWjjExJNOImgyETMtZIIUhUhnGaF5c3NBJanskdryZHc8Eumd9HlOaWGRoC1sUQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds before writing stupidities. Your comment, besides being condescending is racist and brings nothing to the discussion.
Thank you for your attack. When SS accepted my photo of a Maple Leaf  coin it was before the Canadian Govt ruled that all coins and notes could not be reproduced.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
4711 Views
Last post August 30, 2006, 16:56
by hospitalera
4 Replies
3405 Views
Last post October 14, 2008, 17:10
by madelaide
6 Replies
1815 Views
Last post May 23, 2015, 09:46
by Fudio
3 Replies
2299 Views
Last post August 06, 2016, 03:54
by Tror
11 Replies
1886 Views
Last post April 06, 2019, 09:21
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results