Legal Question: What is a photo worth?

["Umm fish?"]

I had some jerk get mad at me and start taking it out on my photos. I used the method above with the photo hosting sites (Photobucket, etc.) without a problem. I was not in any way trying to punish the guy, just trying to get him to leave my photos alone.

 

[stdreb27]

Get a lawyer. I don't see ANY problem with charging 2500 dollars for the professional use of a photograph. But if my understanding of small claims court is correct, they can't order him to remove the pictures. Just repay financial damages.

 

[gnarlyswine]

Im afraid the fact that the photographs are of his property means I cant sympathise with you on this - regardless of permissions or not.
If he gave permission then I think its only fair that you let him use the images to reciprocate.
If not, then again I dont believe you should have taken the images. If there are any signs or logos in the pictures then they would be his intellectual property and you would be infringing on his copyright.
The exerpts from the back and forths no doubt dont show the whole story and I am sure you are doing your best to portray the LFS owner as being unreasonable , but the language you have used is pretty confrontational and Im sure a more carefully worded contact - or even a personal visit , would have cleared the issue up without escalating.
Sorry but I think people are way to quick to start threatening lawyers and im rarely sympathetic to this unfortunate development in society.

 

["Umm fish?"]

If he gave permission then I think its only fair that you let him use the images to reciprocate.

Yet, that not the way the law works. Copyright is a property that you own that begins with taking a picture. It's not a barter unless the barter is explicit. The fact the business owner gave permission to photograph the property has no bearing on whether the owner can use the photos unless using the photos was an explicit requirement of giving permission to take the photos.

If there are any signs or logos in the pictures then they would be his intellectual property and you would be infringing on his copyright.

I think you mean "trademark." A trademark is a way of reserving a name or mark for a certain type of business in a certain market. It's not an infringement of a trademark to take a picture of it. Of course, libel might be involved in a publicly posted photo but that's obviously not the case here.

But, people take photo and video of copyrighted works all the time. Videographers working for dance choreographers is one example. Guess who owns the copyright to the video? The videographer.

The spirit of compromise that you advocate, while praiseworthy, rarely has anything whatsoever to do with anyone's actual rights under the law.

 

[gnarlyswine]

I dont disagree with any of the above - I dont claim to have any legal knowledge on the subject and was really aproaching from a common sense point of view rather than legal rights - because lets face it, when you start pursuing your rights vehemantley without taking a step back to evaluate if you are actualy aggrieved, or are just being an ambulance chaser you become this guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)

(please note im not suggesting anyone here fits in the latter category - but just that you do really evaluate how much of an impact this is really having on you - personally id be flattered that they considered the image worth using.)

Regardless of my rights , if I posted it, unprotected on a public media , and found it used without my permission I would say I was at fault for having done it in the first place rather than blaming those who used it. I would then take steps to protect myself in future.
Blaming , and trivial rights , and lawsuits and everything that goes with it does nothing for societies advancement. Learning form mistakes does.
A right is to walk down a street without fear of being murdered without repercussion, or dragged off and incarcerated at random without due process. Not to leave your keys in the car with the engine running and be peeved when it gets stolen.

 

[JeffReef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12965794#post12965794 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stdreb27
Get a lawyer. I don't see ANY problem with charging 2500 dollars for the professional use of a photograph. But if my understanding of small claims court is correct, they can't order him to remove the pictures. Just repay financial damages.

True - He can pretty much charge anywhere from $2500 to 1 million dollars for each picture. But (and it's a big but) will he get that amount granted in court? Tell me what your thoughts on this.

The fact of the matter is that It would be very difficult for him to prove any financial damages by having his pictures used on some website. How can he prove that he lost $7500 over this? You tell me.

Paying for a lawyer, missing work for court days and the amount of stress this will cause him (and his family if he has one) will likely be greater than the amount granted - if any.

All it takes to steal a picture is a simple right click on a mouse. If it's that important to him, he should have protected those pictures before posting them online.

 

[drparker]

All it takes to steal a picture is a simple right click on a mouse. If it's that important to him, he should have protected those pictures before posting them online.

if I posted it, unprotected on a public media , and found it used without my permission I would say I was at fault for having done it in the first place rather than blaming those who used it.

A lot of people think " It's just a picture" But we are talking about protecting an artists work. There is no difference between copying someone's picture off a website and using it commercially and copying a Eric Clapton song off the radio and using in a TV commercial without permission.

They are both easy to do and both illegal, but one seems socially acceptable.

 

[JeffReef]

Using someone's picture without permission is unethical; And I would take offense if I found my pictures being used for anything without my permission.

However, the oppurtunity cost of pursuing legal action againts the offender (in this case) is greater than the possible reward. This is why I was suggesting that he just forget about it.

 

[stdreb27]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12967468#post12967468 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JeffReef
True - He can pretty much charge anywhere from $2500 to 1 million dollars for each picture. But (and it's a big but) will he get that amount granted in court? Tell me what your thoughts on this.

The fact of the matter is that It would be very difficult for him to prove any financial damages by having his pictures used on some website. How can he prove that he lost $7500 over this? You tell me.

Paying for a lawyer, missing work for court days and the amount of stress this will cause him (and his family if he has one) will likely be greater than the amount granted - if any.

All it takes to steal a picture is a simple right click on a mouse. If it's that important to him, he should have protected those pictures before posting them online.

The value really depends on what he does with the pictures. A guy who is making his living off of his photography will have a lot better leg to stand on than someone like me who does it as a hobby. As far as a value for the picture goes. However when you get into using photographs in a business setting prices go WAY WAY up. Think about a movie, you can buy a movie for 15 bucks on DVD, but if you want the right to deciminate it, you're going to pay. My dad sells prints of his shots for 50 to 100 bucks for an 8x10 but if someone wants the rights to use it other than a display on the wall at the office, then you're talking some real money. IMO 2500 dollars for HQ shots used online ect when you factor in original cost plus interest for non-payment and penalty for improper use of the photo. Then it isn't asking for too much, I don't think. Especially if the guy is going to be rude about it. If you want to protect your proprietary work then you are going to need to get a lawyer because it is REDICULOUSLY complicated, and the owner will most likely already have legal council.
As for costs, just hire someone on contingency.

 

[drparker]

I agree that it's not worth it monetarily to go after him in small claim court.

But having a lawyer advise you of your exact rights and having them draft a cease and desist letter along with demand for payment would be worth it in my opinion. I'd also have the lawyer draft a letter to his ISP and hosting provider. All of these could come in handy over and over.

Plus imagining his face when he gets the letter from your lawyer and notices from his ISP and hosting site: Priceless

 

[stdreb27]

However, personally, I'd try one last time to nicely ask him personally. Just manipulate him, don't admit anything, but appologize for what the owner thought offensive, say he never ment for it to get that personal, say all the things that the owner would want to hear (that doesn't compromise any position in court later) and that he'd really appreciate the removal of the photos. Then if that doesn't go well, then go after him legally, because frankly 3 pictures aren't enough for the owner to spend time in court over. Especially when he can go steal someone elses from some other message board who would never notice.

 

[JeffReef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12967888#post12967888 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by drparker
I agree that it's not worth it monetarily to go after him in small claim court.

But having a lawyer advise you of your exact rights and having them draft a cease and desist letter along with demand for payment would be worth it in my opinion. I'd also have the lawyer draft a letter to his ISP and hosting provider. All of these could come in handy over and over.

Plus imagining his face when he gets the letter from your lawyer and notices from his ISP and hosting site: Priceless

This would be a minimum of one hour consultation and one hour letter drafting - approximately $500 in fees.

For this much, I'd forget about it.

 

["Umm fish?"]

Edit--Not really relevant any longer.....

 

[Letmegrow]

Didn't you just post a thread last week saying something to the effect of "Hey look at these pics I took of my LFS for their website"

You gave the link to the website and posted some of the pics ?

Was that you or someone esle ?

I can't find the thread now.

 

[BlueCorn]

If the image has been registered with the copyright office you're entitled to sue for usage rights and damages. If not, you're still entitled to compensation for usage rights. You'll need to figure out what valid pricing is for your images.

This is a good start:

http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm

 

[fatrip]

very cool site beer guy.

 

[jwedehase]

Wow, I'm not receiving notification of new posts. Sorry about the delayed response. So... to first clarify some of the muddiness:

The messages back and forth are there in their entirety, minus the personal attacks. They are also the entire conversation we've had about my photos. I did not edit the messages, nor delete non-favorable portions. I only deleted names and the 2 paragraphs of personal attacks by the LFS owner. Nothing was typed with the intent of swaying anyone to agree with me.

I can't dig too deeply into the history here, as it could begin to compromise confidentiality. I'm sorry it has to be that way, but as mentioned, it really couldn't get any worse than to turn myself from a copyright infringement plaintiff to a slander defendant. I'm doing the best I can to look at only the facts, and not tarnish anything with emotions or feelings.

As a side note, I've decided the photos are worth $250 each. I knew $2500 was ridiculous before I posted. I was just trying to get some sort of feedback.

Maroun.c, thanks for the thought about not having a property release. This has been the new kink in the process. I'm looking into that now.

Umm, Fish?, thank you for the information. I have a lot of reading to do. I'd like to learn more about the service provider relationship. Is there honestly any chance the SP could be liable for anything at all?

JeffReef, I can appreciate your intent in that "it's just not worth the effort," but what's killing me is that we always read about who has what rights, and yadda yadda, but I feel like the photography industry is filled with surrender. It's almost like everyone's always saying "Yes, we have the power, we own the photos, we're entitled, but it's not worth the effort." If that's the case... You don't have the power and the legalities are worthless. I'm sick of this industry "lying down and taking it" so to speak.

gnarlywine, I can appreciate where you're coming from, but it sounds like you're not understanding my motives. For me, it's about doing what's right, regardless of cost. If I don't get a penny from this, that's fine. If I can resolve it with the service provider yanking the photos... perfect! My feelings are that I asked him to remove photos, he told me to F*** off and that he was going to keep them up just to spite me. He's called a bluff, and I feel it's important that he understands his actions aren't acceptable.

As for lawyer and court fees, that's why I want to resolve this in small claims. No lawyers allowed. This is about removing the photos, not retiring early off of a settlement.

Jeffreef, the opportunity costs are not greater than the reward for me. I just want it to be "right."

stdreb27, asking him nicely wouldn't work. If I called, he'd hang up as soon as he heard my voice. If I walked in, he'd kick me out and call the cops. At this point, out of spite, he really would go to court over three bad photos.

Letmegrow, that wasn't me, no. I think that was Blazer88.

Beerguy, thank you.

Has anyone actually heard of a photographer taking someone to court? Winning?

 

[Blazer88]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12971112#post12971112 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Letmegrow
Didn't you just post a thread last week saying something to the effect of "Hey look at these pics I took of my LFS for their website"

You gave the link to the website and posted some of the pics ?

Was that you or someone esle ?

I can't find the thread now.

That was probably the thread that I posted a few weeks ago (and I was compensated for my time).

jwedehase,
You may want to check out the "business of photography" section on POTN. I know many people have come across a situation like this and they may be able to offer up some advice that may be worthwhile. Hopefully RC doesn't mind me posting a link to over there:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=23

 

["Umm fish?"]

Is there honestly any chance the SP could be liable for anything at all?

Sure. Service providers can be liable if their sites are knowingly used to serve copyrighted material and they don't do anything about it. The two key points being "knowingly" (you have to tell them) and "they don't do anything" (they ignore you when you tell them).

 

[maroun.c]

Try checking fred miranda forum.
On Fred Miranda there is a a forum for wedding photographers and those guys are usually very familiar with copyright rules maybe you could get a better answer there.