MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: My shot used for movie poster-Legal advice needed  (Read 33128 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« on: May 03, 2013, 04:53 »
0
As some of you may be aware here last year I posted my image that was used in the movie poster "Looper". I have looked on IS, SS and Dreamstime (I am only on these three) and I cannot see one single large payment for an extended licence. I am now getting worried that my image could have been stolen and used without my permission, or just a standard download. As posters are for sale all over the net, posters reproduced all over the world in cinemas, I feel I have been diddled here. My photographer friend knows a lawyer and thinks I may have a case.

I will now contact the company behind this movie and try and find where they got this from.


gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2013, 06:04 »
0
yikes! good luck with this.
I think a very calm letter of enquiry to the production company of the movie is your first step.
although the idea of print runs with regard to movie posters is becoming obsolete?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2013, 06:13 »
0
Two separate issues.
Print run for the poster, depends on the agency but iS allows up to 499,999. Not sure how you could prove they'd used more than that. Also some agencies allow up to a million.
Posters for sale: need an EL from iS. (Are they being sold by the film company, or are they being ripped off too, by internet thieves?)

You'd need to check what's allowed at the three agencies and their partners, as it seems that partner sites like TS often sell for less but allow more rights.  ::) >:(

Anyway, good luck with them answering your initial query about where they got the image. Without that info, you have nothing to go on.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2013, 07:08 »
0
I have contacted the media company responsible for the poster. Again, I need to know which agency sold my image because neither have been paid for EL.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2013, 07:14 »
0
You need to know which agency or partner sold the image so that you can check their requirements for ELs, which as you know vary widely, especially the partner sites.
Hey, if the internet sales are illegal, you and the film company can together go after the thieves. I bet they can afford more experienced/expensive lawyers.  :D

Pinocchio

« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2013, 07:58 »
0
If it turns out you do need legal assistance you might start by looking at www.ImageRights.Com; another option you to check out is www.PhotoAttorney.Com, the very helpful and educational blog operated by Carolyn Wright.  When last I ckecked a short while ago, they offer a number of different plans, and you might find something that works for you.  ImageRights have received many favourable comments in the Alamy forums (the old "Ask The Forum")..  But it's good to be cautious - check your agencies, document your case, be polite, let your lawyers decide when a sterner tone is appropriate... 

Good luck, and I hope you don't need a lawyer at all; I'm very curious to know how you progress, let us know as circumstances permit.

Regards

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2013, 08:02 »
0
Thanks. I don't want to get into lawyers but I can easily prove its my image as I have the raw file encrypted with date etc. shouldn't be hard to prove.

Pinocchio

« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2013, 08:26 »
0
Yes, definitely best to avoid lawyers if you can.  I would also collect some samples of the offending poster - in whatever format is available; photograph it if you have to.

Regards

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2013, 16:52 »
0
Well I heard nothing back from the company since my email almost a day ago.

« Reply #9 on: May 03, 2013, 16:56 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:57 by Audi 5000 »

drial7m1

« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2013, 17:36 »
0
If you contacted the company about this and have had no response yet, I'd bet that they are getting their legal department involved, especially since there is money involved.  While you don't want to get an attorney involved, you might want to speak to one just to see what your options will be.

If you give a larger company any room, they will bury you in litigation and you will have lost any chance of getting what you should of had in the first place.

Good luck.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2013, 01:56 »
0
I can't see why they would have a leg to stand on, especially if the images was used unauthorized. Pretty black and white really. I can't afford a lawyer but a friend knows one that can give me free advise as he is is friend.

Microbius

« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2013, 03:05 »
+1
I can't see why they would have a leg to stand on, especially if the images was used unauthorized. Pretty black and white really. I can't afford a lawyer but a friend knows one that can give me free advise as he is is friend.
Well the use could well be covered under a standard license, in which case they are fine.

In a similar situation I just sent a polite email saying thank for using my work, just for my records could you let me know where you purchased the license and what the print run for the poster was.

In that case the company involved purchased an EL from IS, I got the impression just to cover themselves.

« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2013, 15:02 »
0
In that case the company involved purchased an EL from IS, I got the impression just to cover themselves.

That is exactly what istock had a large magazine do with one of my photos. The magazine is huge and their print run FAR exceeded what the standard license covered. I knew it was purchased from istock because there was a credit line in the fold. I had never received payment for an EL for that particular photo. Of course istock paid me the EL after I caught it, but I'm guessing that their standard negotiation with large clients is that they won't pay for an EL unless someone squawks. Or istock charges the client for the EL but never pays out to the contributor, unless they squawk.

Wonder how many ELs never get paid out because contributors never find their work? It was pure coincidence that I spotted this one, because this wasn't a magazine that I regularly bought.

By now, I am guessing istock has upped their print run quantity for standard licenses so they never have to pay out an EL.  ::)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2013, 15:07 »
0
By now, I am guessing istock has upped their print run quantity for standard licenses so they never have to pay out an EL.  ::)
No it's still 500,000.
I bet a lot of buyers never read the licence use pages so have no idea that they even need an EL. They probably think that RF means RF.

« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2013, 17:25 »
0
No idea how much an EL would pay on IS but we're talking $28 on SS and less on DT and lawyers charge how many hundreds an hour? 

Poncke v2

« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2013, 18:23 »
0
In that case the company involved purchased an EL from IS, I got the impression just to cover themselves.

That is exactly what istock had a large magazine do with one of my photos. The magazine is huge and their print run FAR exceeded what the standard license covered. I knew it was purchased from istock because there was a credit line in the fold. I had never received payment for an EL for that particular photo. Of course istock paid me the EL after I caught it, but I'm guessing that their standard negotiation with large clients is that they won't pay for an EL unless someone squawks. Or istock charges the client for the EL but never pays out to the contributor, unless they squawk.

Wonder how many ELs never get paid out because contributors never find their work? It was pure coincidence that I spotted this one, because this wasn't a magazine that I regularly bought.

By now, I am guessing istock has upped their print run quantity for standard licenses so they never have to pay out an EL.  ::)
If that was to be true, then that would be plain straight forward fraud. Although many companies try everything to make money, that would be the dumbest thing IS could do.


Poncke v2

« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2013, 18:32 »
+1
Think of it 500.000 posters. Thats a heck of a lot. In how many theaters did Looper run? How many video stores did sell the DVD?

Number of cinema screens in the major countries: 149,676 ( I am sure it didnt run in all 149k theatres)

http://chartsbin.com/view/32k

That leaves another 350,000 posters for video stores and other purposes.

I think 500.000 posters is a lot, they might not have needed an EL.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2013, 18:41 »
+1
By now, I am guessing istock has upped their print run quantity for standard licenses so they never have to pay out an EL.  ::)
If that was to be true, then that would be plain straight forward fraud. Although many companies try everything to make money, that would be the dumbest thing IS could do.
It's not (currently/yet) true, but if they did change it how could it be fraud? I'm sure they have tight legalese which means they can change any usage details whenever and however they want.

The different agencies have different limits.
iS: 499,999
SS: 250,000
Ft: None, as far as I can see: "Fotolia hereby grants to the Non-Exclusive Downloading Member a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, non-transferable sublicense to use, reproduce or display the Work an unlimited number of times in the authorized media"
DT: 500,000, or 10,000 for free images
GI RF (AFAICS): unlimited
Alamy RF (AFAICS): unlimited

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2013, 18:43 »
0
I think 500.000 posters is a lot, they might not have needed an EL.
What about the items for resale? I'm not about to search through all the t&c again.

Poncke v2

« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2013, 02:28 »
0
By now, I am guessing istock has upped their print run quantity for standard licenses so they never have to pay out an EL.  ::)
If that was to be true, then that would be plain straight forward fraud. Although many companies try everything to make money, that would be the dumbest thing IS could do.
It's not (currently/yet) true, but if they did change it how could it be fraud? I'm sure they have tight legalese which means they can change any usage details whenever and however they want.

The different agencies have different limits.
iS: 499,999
SS: 250,000
Ft: None, as far as I can see: "Fotolia hereby grants to the Non-Exclusive Downloading Member a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, non-transferable sublicense to use, reproduce or display the Work an unlimited number of times in the authorized media"
DT: 500,000, or 10,000 for free images
GI RF (AFAICS): unlimited
Alamy RF (AFAICS): unlimited
You removed all the text I replied to?! I responded to his whole comment not just the two last lines. He said IS was selling images for EL usage but would only report a standard licence to the contributors. Thats fraud where I live.

Poncke v2

« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2013, 03:15 »
0
I think 500.000 posters is a lot, they might not have needed an EL.
What about the items for resale? I'm not about to search through all the t&c again.
The OP only mentions posters

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: May 05, 2013, 05:37 »
+2
@Ponke: Nowhere does the OP suggest that iS have been selling ELs and not telling the contributor. He said, in  the OP: "I am now getting worried that my image could have been stolen and used without my permission, or just a standard download."
There was then a suggestion by cclapper that there might have been shady dealings by iStock, which, if true, would indeed be fraud,  but there was no suggestion of that by the OP.
Without being a fangirl, I stick by my assertion that on all the sites, only a percentage of needed ELs are actually purchased, either because the buyer thinks they can get away with it without being caught, or more than likely they don't actually read the licence uses, which on most sites are very difficult to find. Any why would someone buying something labelled 'Royalty-free' imagine that in some cases, they have to pay for the royalties.
I have no proof of that; however, I have a folder full of in-uses and in well under 50% of my editorial in-uses there is no (c)iStock/contributor as is clearly set out in the Licence Use, and in considerably more, it says only (c) iStockphoto, which is untrue and not as set out in the Licence Use.

Re goods for sale (other post), the OP said: "posters are for sale all over the net" which is a separate, but related, issue (and a fairly complicated one, which probably would need legal advice).


Poncke v2

« Reply #23 on: May 05, 2013, 05:45 »
-2
Sue, I was responding to CD clappers argument I quoted him, not the OP. I responded to his whole comment, not the last two lines.

The OP mentions only posters in his opening comment and just added my thoughts on the 500k limits.

Everything I said is put out of context


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #24 on: May 05, 2013, 06:12 »
+2
The fraud theory is of course theoretically possible, and can't be totally dismissed. We have no way of knowing if any agency is paying the contributor their full dues, and in such an opaque system, defrauding contributors must be an attractive option for some.
However, I still think the fault is far more likely to be on the buyer's end, either out of malice or ignorance. Call me Pollyanna - but when I tried to update my GPS, I had to click 'I agree' to the terms and conditions, and when I clicked over to read them, there were pages and pages of small dense type. I have to admit, I skimmed the headers and clicked.
Further evidence that I doubt if many people read the legalese - on a consumer programme this week was a shady used car dealership, which had garnered many complaints, and was not responding to direct complaints, referring to their contract which said something like, "I am satisfied that this car is in good condition, and in the event of any problem, 'Shady Dealers' will not be responsible". (Not the exact words, but a reasonable paraphrase.)
That clause invalidates the contract on the dealer's side as it is illegal (in the UK, we cannot sign away legal rights, in general [though we can transfer copyright, I'm not sure how that fits in  :o], but my point is that many people seemed to have signed that contract, then of course 'hadn't noticed that bit'.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4228 Views
Last post September 03, 2006, 20:41
by yupgp
11 Replies
7388 Views
Last post January 24, 2008, 05:31
by ljupco
1 Replies
3924 Views
Last post February 24, 2012, 18:02
by clickinchic
46 Replies
9051 Views
Last post December 17, 2012, 20:23
by Simplyphotos
1 Replies
2251 Views
Last post April 18, 2018, 04:56
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors