MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Image Infringement - Advice Needed  (Read 3008 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 28, 2014, 16:24 »
0
Recently found one of my images used in a printed magazine with a print run of approx 1.3 million copies.

User of the image is a national organisation in the UK requiring paid membership, of which I am a member.

Image is available on several ms sites that I submit to, but had never had an EL licence on any of them.

I emailed the editor asking where the image was obtained from, adding that I was unable to find any licence purchase applicable for a print run of this quantity.

Got a very quick reply from the editor advising that the image was obtained from a microstock site (name supplied but not included here) using a standard monthly subscription, and added that after checking they now realized that the image was not licensed for the size of the print run.

They have apologized and asked me to let them know how much to compensate for the image misuse and to provide an invoice so that they can arrange payment.

The image is relatively simple isolated object that was used inside of the magazine at half page size.

If the correct EL had been purchased when the image was downloaded it would have cost them approx 80 GB Pounds (approx $120).

So the question is what would a reasonable amount to request be?

Don't want to be unreasonable and ask for too much but also don't want to ask for too less.

Any advice appreciated.




ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2014, 16:33 »
0
It's your decision, but you might consider having them pay you directly the full amount of the EL, but no doubt the agency wouldn't like it if they found out, e.g. if the magazine contacted them.

« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2014, 16:40 »
+2
Tell them to go to the agency and purchase an EL, then everybody's happy.

« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2014, 18:10 »
0
Perhaps better would be to tell the agency to charge them - I'd suggest double the standard rate would be appropriate since they should pay something extra for an infringement that would have saved them $120 if you hadn't noticed it.

« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2014, 18:24 »
0
it's good u found out about this.
which makes me wonder how many other magazines,etc could have done the same without an EL.
how many of us actually go searching for that?  i know i don't... and i just rely on the EL i get,
taking for granted the agency/client did the right thing.
even if  we did look for it, it's not a certainty that we will find it like you did.

hope u get paid now that they "realise" it reqd an EL.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2014, 18:36 »
+3
I'm perfectly sure that a lot of buyers never look at the licence conditions - look at the number of files used editorially without credits for proof of that (required by iS at least). So I'm as sure as I can be that we miss a lot of ELs.
In addition, some companies make it very difficult for buyers to actually find the T&C, and they don't make it obvious that some uses require an extended licence.

« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2014, 19:09 »
+1
Unless you think the publication acted in bad faith (i.e they have a history of doing this), why try and obtain extra money from them?

They're willing to correct their mistake, which seems as if their heart is in the right place. What's the theory of operation that says you (a) get to collect from them directly - this should go through the agency that licensed it; or (b) get something extra because the publication goofed?

« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2014, 20:27 »
+1
yes, i have to agree with both jo ann and sue,
that indeed agencies make it difficult for buyers to understand which licensing is needed.
also, that "royalty free" is another problem to many to mean "nothing to pay".

perharps it is time to reword that much word of ambiguity (royalty-FREE)

« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2014, 03:48 »
+1
Thanks for the advice.

Will request them to go to the agency and retrospectively purchase the EL.

Just to make it clear never requested anything from them and the original email to them was just a general enquiry regarding where the image was obtained from. The matter of payment came from them.

Will also request that they look and see if any other EL's were required as I can see at least one other image in this issue of the magazine that is a ms stock image.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3306 Views
Last post September 03, 2006, 20:41
by yupgp
11 Replies
6162 Views
Last post January 24, 2008, 05:31
by ljupco
12 Replies
4293 Views
Last post May 10, 2012, 13:37
by Noedelhap
14 Replies
3480 Views
Last post October 14, 2013, 12:38
by Ron
9 Replies
3169 Views
Last post March 18, 2018, 04:49
by namussi

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle