Im curious what peoples thoughts are on CC licensing, and whether anyone thinks Wired is in violation of my CC licensed dung beetle licensing:
QuotePhoto is available for use and distribution under Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic Creative Commons Licence.
I request that I am informed of any use of the image, so that I can see how and where it is used.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/dung-beetles-camera-phones/
At what point does an image become commercial? In their defence its an article that is accessible to all for free, (I assume it/the article wasnt in print), but at the other end of the scale... is my request to be contacted about the use legally binding (they didnt contact me even though I ask), as well as the fact they have paid advertising on the page...
I have no idea about the legal or contact side of things but Id be really annoyed that theyd used the picture firstly without asking and secondly without crediting you at all.
Certainly time for an angry letter.
I would think that a profit making site like Wired would be classed as commercial use.
Firstly, well done for getting your photo used - thats pretty cool.
Secondly, theyre definitely in breach here - Wired is a commercial site that makes presumably some amount of money from advertising so technically theyre breaking the terms of the licence.
I wouldnt write an angry letter first time round - play it cool - just say I see youve used the image which is fine but please attribute it properly and the charge will be £xxx. There are some pretty good guides around the web about sensible pricing for selling photos. Ive seen a lot of stories about pic editors who let this stuff slide if no-one notices but are straightforward to deal with if you call them on it. If that doesnt work second letter/email can give it both barrels!
They do actually credit me at the end of the article I hasten to add, sorry if the OP gave the impression they didnt.
They DID:
Credit me
They DIDNT:
Contact me prior to use as stipulated in the image description
Abide by the NON-commercial use.
I was thinking about contacting them, but figure the second I do itll be an "oh s**t" moment for them and suddenly either the article will be pulled or the image replaced. I guess Ill need to look into similar CC examples more, technically this isnt the first time this has happened, but Ive let the others slide as theyve been small fry websites/blogs, other than Practical FishKeeping Magazine that did something similar and I didnt know about it till I opened up their newsletter and saw one of my own photos!
Stupid thing is if theyd asked/told me first Id have been ok with it, as it is, not so much!
blag a free subscription to their magazine.
Quote from: Eggtasticoblag a free subscription to their magazine.
~£20s worth of magazine subscription? Selling yourself short there Id say.
Zpyder - not convinced the article would necessarily get immediately pulled? This looks crap on Wireds part - and given they are actually are a real media publication they should know how this stuff works.
I think the best you can hope for here is (maybe) a gratuity from Wired and an apology. Theyre in the wrong, for sure but its a CC image. Making your intellectual property subject to CC youre just setting yourself up for people to use it for free - even commercially.
:)
Thats what Im thinking too Eagle.
I havent really got a problem with people using my images so long as they ask me, and theyre not really profiting directly from the image. Id rather they get used than have an all rights reserved stuck on them and looked at once in a while.
Its all publicity, once in a while Id hope someone wants to use an image commercially (can but pray hah)
Ill ask a law lecturer tomorrow at work whether there is anything there before just emailing a "hi, youre using one of my images that is for non-commercial use, and you didnt inform me, my fee for commercial use is (undecided)..." and try my luck. £5 isnt really worth the time and is pretty low, £50 is a joke, might say £20 for this kind of use, never know, itll pay for a filter or a memory card heh.
Quote from: zpyderI was thinking about contacting them, but figure the second I do itll be an "oh s**t" moment for them and suddenly either the article will be pulled or the image replaced.
Thats what your print screen button is for ;)
Im not completely sure how the licence works on photography, but doing media we have to learn about using it for music and film etc, but the way it works with music is although they have to refer to you as the person who produced it, if youre unsigned they can use your material and not have to pay for it. I guess it kinda works like that with your photo, you can claim copyright if you can prove that you took the photo, but otherwise they can use it and claim its just similar. Something like that, I doubt I helped at all (:
I think that may be the case if you were a photographer who had a unique idea and took the photo, and then found someone selling a photo using said idea/frame/composition etc, if you can "copyright" a scene that is.
But as it stands I doubt they could claim that the photo in question is a different person holding the same species in the same pose etc. Plus the records on Flickr would show I put it up a few years before they used it, and the exif data is in tact.
Pretty sure the Creative Commons licencing is legally binding given the wording etc, the only defence on infringment is a claim of misinterpreting the rules (thats what I feel anyway), but for something as big as Wired thats a bit of a feeble excuse.
Have spoken to the law lecturer now.
He said if the cost of what I would charge them was double £65, I could take them to small claims. I pointed out that Id probably have just charged £10 if theyd asked, and he said its Wired, they should have known better, what they have done is an infringement of intellectual property rights.
So the course of action is to email them politely stating the fee is xx for the use, copying in the lecturer so its official (could copy in a proper lawyer from uni too but whatever) giving them 7 days to sort it out on the grounds of it being there for a few months now etc.
Interesting stuff, I dont want to charge a lot but I might just to see what happens.
as a benchmark, my Dad recently got a photo of an unusual grasshopper published in The Metro (The freebe paper on the underground). They paid him £50.
GAHGAHGAH
Someone has just pointed out the fact the image was commented on back in march by Wired that it was used in the article. Because of the stupid no-email notifications flickr has, I never saw the comment until now. Im guessing this means Wireds backs are covered :(
One on the one front that doesnt really count for much here...
Its the waiving of the non-commercial use term that would earn you the £50-£100 here... proceed as planned.
Quote from: BeanissocoollikeIm not completely sure how the licence works on photography, but doing media we have to learn about using it for music and film etc, but the way it works with music is although they have to refer to you as the person who produced it, if youre unsigned they can use your material and not have to pay for it.
You have to be incredibly careful if you are a company using music. If its out of copyright then its OK, otherwise you have to provide reparations to the owners of the copyright, if they are found.
There has been some concern that the list of the people who havent been paid is getting bigger though. Companies supposedly try to contact for copyright payment but far too often they dont try hard enough.
You arent quite exact on what you are saying.
Just because you arent signed to a music company DOES NOT allow people to copy or produce it without paying! It is still copyright!
All material whether physically signed by someone as copyright or not is still copyright. I could put one of my books on here without any copyright notification or my name attached. If someone prints it and starts to sell copies I can still sue for copyright infringement.
If you waive copyright payment then they can produce it but you have to give them that permission.
------
Zpyder, as BigSoy says you have to give them permission to publish/use your photo commercially. If you havent done that then you can still sue for damages.
Im with Serious and Bigsoy. The only bit theyve vaguely complied with is the bit thats probably not binding anyway, they have still used it commercially without securing permission first.
The thing is would any solicitor actually recommend you follow the case up and sue for damages since the amount youll likely receive will be so low? I have a feeling theyd all recommend simply sending a cease and desist letter to have the image removed and that would be the end of it.
Its the fact that theyve completely ignored the artists express wish that it should not be used for commercial gain.
It will come down to whether or not Zpyder actually minds them using it of course, its his photo, but purely objectively they have broken the terms of the license and should either pay up or take it down.
I half drafted an email last night before I noticed the Comment. Ill finish it off tonight hopefully, get it checked over by a few people, and send it off.
Quote from: Chris HThe thing is would any solicitor actually recommend you follow the case up and sue for damages since the amount youll likely receive will be so low? I have a feeling theyd all recommend simply sending a cease and desist letter to have the image removed and that would be the end of it.
No-one with any sense recommended suing... clearly its not worth going to those lengths.
A well-worded letter offering them the chance to do the right thing (Pay & Credit You) is the way forward... a cease and desist letter doesnt really get to the right answer either as Im assuming Zpyder quite likes the fact it is being used and wouldnt mind being paid a bit either - I know I wouldnt in his case.
Aye, fact is Ive got a small portfolio of 2 dozen images being used in print and online (that I know of), all for free, but for people or orgs that simply cant afford to really go down paying for the stuff. A half dozen of the images are fairly big names. Ive yet to make any money from a photo and it grates a little that potentially the first time I get money for photography is not through a proper sale. Will have to wait and see.
On the plus side someone requested to licence an image through getty yesterday which is cool. I need to look into that as I doubt itll be worth the time and effort to register etc.
Get yself on iStock - Ive made thousands of $ since joining.
Im still pulling in the bux despite not adding any pics for years!
Mind you, Im bladdy good! :heehaw: :mutley:
:P You know full well I suck at stock photography :P
How many photos do you have on there to be making money? Admittedly I only have about 20.
I was expecting something along these lines...
My email
QuoteMessage Text: Dear Sir(s) I am writing to inform you that the photograph used on your dung beetle article (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/dung-beetles-camera-phones/) has been used without expressed permission of the photographer (me), and in a way that infringes the copyrights applicable to the image. It is licensed under a "Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial licence", and states I am to be contacted prior to any use. As Wired is a commercial entity, and displays advertising on the article page, this is commercial use and as such permission has not been granted for its use on your website, despite the Wired articles author leaving a comment on the photos page on flickr. Because of the notification system for comments on flickr, the comment (and use of the image) has only just been brought to my attention. I accept this may have been an oversight on Wireds behalf, and so would be happy to request my usual fee for the commercial use of my images, which is £20, rather than seek damages. I would appreciate being contacted within the next 7 days at my email address chris@xxxxxxxxxx Yours faithfully, Chris Moody
Reply
QuoteDear Chris,
Its not our intent to upset anyone in the photographic community or
in the Creative Commons community.
However, Wired is a news organization, and the use of CC-licensed
content to illustrate editorials and news stories, with proper
attribution, is within the guidelines established by the Creative
Commons.
You may want to consider changing the licensing attached to your
published photos if you dont want them used on Wired and other news
websites. Please let us know and wed be happy to take the photo
down.
Best,
Jim
--
Jim Merithew
Wired.com
Photo Editor
just ask for a free sub o) - if its only on their website they can easily pull it & get a different pic.
Is it really worth arguing about? - unless it makes it to print - then you have an arguement
If i was in your situation i would make a note of it for future reference, possibly drop them an email reminding them of how this should work, but tbh i personally wouldnt bother contacting them, if they had credited me that would be payment enough getting one of my pictures on a well known and popular site / magazine, i might be selling myself short but the fact ive been credited will add towards my reputation.
Tbh I need to look into it more as its not the first time Ive heard the term "Editorial Use" which, if my understanding is correct, is akin to the "freedom of the press" in that they can just take any image and use it if it is newsworthy and for a news item, so long as they credit the creator. Which sucks. I need to double check creative commons terms to see whether editorial use applies to all CC stuff, or just Non-Com, if the latter Ill reply back saying to check the licencing. If the former Ill leave it as is.
I cannot believe theyve bothered to argue over £20! FFS....
Quote from: zpyderTbh I need to look into it more as its not the first time Ive heard the term "Editorial Use" which, if my understanding is correct, is akin to the "freedom of the press" in that they can just take any image and use it if it is newsworthy and for a news item, so long as they credit the creator. Which sucks. I need to double check creative commons terms to see whether editorial use applies to all CC stuff, or just Non-Com, if the latter Ill reply back saying to check the licencing. If the former Ill leave it as is.
This is bollocks - there may be something in the fact that if you can demonstrate reasonable intentions when using a picture (i.e. trying to create the tog) then its ok to use newsworthy pictures without the licence.
In this case theyre trying to pull a fast one, Id write back pointing out the different versions of the Creative Commons and stating if youd left it open for commercial use theyd be fine but as it is theyre not...
Im not the only person apparently that has queried this. My law lecturer has suggested contacting the Media school lawyer to find out more lol.