# Copyright issues on social media...



## sarabil1 (Mar 30, 2014)

Hi everyone,

I'm a live music photographer, and recently one of the musicians I shot wanted to use my photos on his social media accounts. I sent him my photos saying that he could use them, I just ask that he credit me when he does. However, he has been posting my images without credit on instagram and Facebook. The first photo he posted without credit, I kindly asked me not to forget to credit me. He added credit to that one and one other, but the others have gone uncredited. I know I probably should have have tighter restraints and/or sent him watermarked images(he could just crop to remove), but I'm obviously past that point now.

I'm wondering what rights I have against him? I'm going to contact him again and say that if he wants to post uncredited images, he can pay for them and use that as he wishes. I just don't know exactly what I can "threaten" him with for lack of a better word.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Mar 30, 2014)

Call this a lesson learned, watermark your images from here on out and move on.  The cat's already out of the bag on this one.  

Photo credit really isn't worth anything IMO.  If you're going to give away images however a prominent watermark for the freebees should be a given.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 30, 2014)

If they refuse to honor your request, email the social medium and tell them about the copyright violation.
Look up DMCA notice.


----------



## hotdrop (Mar 30, 2014)

While you have some legal recourse I don't really think its in your best interest to file DMCA requests and have them taken down. That just makes you look like the bad guy and could harm future business. Like the previous guy said write that off as a lessons learned mistake.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 30, 2014)

hotdrop said:


> While you have some legal recourse I don't really think its in your best interest to file DMCA requests and have them taken down. That just makes you look like the bad guy and could harm future business. Like the previous guy said write that off as a lessons learned mistake.



That's like loaning your bike to someone and then just writing it off when you don't get it back. 

I suppose, if you don't care about the semantics, you could just write it off...that's why most people get away with it. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to abide by their agreements.  Even verbal ones.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Mar 30, 2014)

He gave an unmarked image to an aspiring musician to use for social media.   Sure he'd be within his rights to file a takedown notice, but question isn't whether he'd be in the right, it's whether the damage done to his relationship with the musician would be worth it.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 30, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> He gave an unmarked image to an aspiring musician to use for social media.   Sure he'd be within his rights to file a takedown notice, but question isn't whether he'd be in the right, it's whether the damage done to his relationship with the musician would be worth it.



Sure, you have to weigh the value of possible future revenue against the value of those pictures. But that's the problem with so many people....they don't place any intrinsic value in pictures they have already produced. 

A relationship with a client that starts out with the client not honoring an agreement is not exactly future business I would be overly eager to pursue. Silly as that may sound.

What does the OP do next time when he watermarks the photos and they are just cropped out?


----------



## Scatterbrained (Mar 30, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > He gave an unmarked image to an aspiring musician to use for social media.   Sure he'd be within his rights to file a takedown notice, but question isn't whether he'd be in the right, it's whether the damage done to his relationship with the musician would be worth it.
> ...



It does sound silly actually.    It's how the market works.  Pay as little as possible.    I used to run a garage servicing European luxury cars.  The clients were always trying to get something for free.  It was always, "can you just come out and take a look at it"; because they knew if there was no ticket there'd be no charge.  Occasionally, for small things, we'd oblige.  More often then not we'd walk out, let them show us the problem, then write it up and start a ticket on it.  They went from being freebee seekers to paying customers without even realizing exactly when the transition happened.   

   Right now they like his work.  Taking the work away will generate bad feeling between them.   Working for them again, the O.P. knows they've had their freebee and can feel free to either charge up front, or only supply "proofs" the next time around with a nice egregious watermark on them.  From there he has control of the situation and can negotiate from the top, rather than from the bottom.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 30, 2014)

What can I say...If integrity is silly, I am guilty as charged. I guess I'm just old fashioned that way. 
I didn't suggest the OP take legal action,  only that he be wary of future business with them.


----------



## KmH (Mar 30, 2014)

Are you in the USA? (no location in profile)

Do you register your copyrights with the US copyright office?

If you don't register your copyrights then you don't have much in the way of legal traction.
Using the DMCA Takedown Notice to Battle Copyright Infringement | Photo Attorney
Help! I?ve Been Infringed! | Photo Attorney
Five Things You Can Do to Protect Your Online Images | Photo Attorney
Registering Your Copyrights Using the eCO System | NatureScapes.Net ? The Resource for Nature Photographers
Embedded Metadata Initiative


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2014)

I had posted some shots of Daughtry, and they were lifted by his fan club in South America and used in a collage on Facebook. I contacted them, and received no response. I posted on their Facebook page that I was the photographer, and that they were being used without permission.

I reported it to Facebook, which required that I demonstrate that the photos were mine. Once I did that, the stolen photos were gone inside of six hours...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> He gave an unmarked image to an aspiring musician to use for social media.   Sure he'd be within his rights to file a takedown notice, but question isn't whether he'd be in the right, it's whether the damage done to his relationship with the musician would be worth it.



I've had plenty of photos on plenty of Facebook pages and websites.

If someone doesn't include a by-line (if that was part of the agreement), I'll mention it to them; no harm, no foul.

If someone continues to intentionally not include it, I have to ask myself why I would want to work with someone like that in the future. Thus far, I haven't come up with a convincing reason...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> It does sound silly actually.    It's how the market works.  Pay as little as possible.    I used to run a garage servicing European luxury cars.  The clients were always trying to get something for free.  It was always, "can you just come out and take a look at it"; because they knew if there was no ticket there'd be no charge.  Occasionally, for small things, we'd oblige.  More often then not we'd walk out, let them show us the problem, then write it up and start a ticket on it.  They went from being freebee seekers to paying customers without even realizing exactly when the transition happened.



And, when they'd agree to your terms, wouldn't you expect them to abide by that agreement?

It's no different here.

Paying as little as possible is fine; I've no problem with that. But once an agreement is reached, both parties have a responsibility to adhere to that agreement. Ask yourself: If you and a client had agreed on the work to be done to his Mercedes, and he agreed to what you wanted for payment, why would you ever entertain the idea that he should've been  permitted to pay you a lesser amount for the agreed on service?

That's just nuts.



> Right now they like his work.  Taking the work away will generate bad feeling between them.



No, using the photos outside of the agreement is what will generate the bad feeling between them...



> Working for them again, the O.P. knows they've had their freebee and can feel free to either charge up front, or only supply "proofs" the next time around with a nice egregious watermark on them.  From there he has control of the situation and can negotiate from the top, rather than from the bottom.



No, what he knows is that he'll be working for someone who will spit on any agreement made.

Personally, I won't work with someone like that...


----------



## Designer (Mar 31, 2014)

sarabil1; You might be able to salvage this.  

Offer to exchange the ones he has already posted with the same image with the addition of your watermark.  I think it is simply a matter of his not want to go through the bother of crediting you in his postings.  

Try that.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2014)

Designer said:


> Offer the exchange the ones he has already posted with the same image with the addition of your watermark.  I think it is simply a matter of his not want to go through the bother of crediting you in his postings.



The "bother"?

The musician broke the agreement. If he didn't want to go through "the bother", he never should've entered into that agreement.

If someone can explain why the OP should take it in the shorts on this one, I'd love to see it...


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 31, 2014)

DMCA notices seem premature at this point. It sounds like there hasn't been just one straightforward, not-skirting-the-issue email written yet telling him to either credit or remove all your photos yet.
I'd go ahead and register the images if not done already, then send that email, give it 2-3 days, and if still not complying, start with DMCAs or whatnot.
Write any emails in such a way that if they were publicly posted, you would come out looking good and feeling confident in anybody reading them.

You want to give your client every chance to do the right thing, I think, and even if you're quite sure he's avoiding it on purpose already, a clear, blanket, straightforward letter in writing is useful to have on record if you did decide to do anything legal or like Steve said, via facebook itself ...One of which I think you should definitely do, if diplomacy fails. It's a useless future client that doesn't abide by agreements, and so you might as well get what you agreed to this time and discourage photo theft in general.


----------



## Designer (Mar 31, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> The "bother"?



I usually prefer to try the simplest explanation first.  

The "agreement" is loose at best, and perhaps the musician doesn't even realize there was an "agreement".  Also, posting images in the first place, only then being asked to go back and modify several postings just because someone who he doesn't know wants him to add in some text does seem like a bother to me, and maybe to the musician as well.  

I wish the photographer well, and hope this can be worked out.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 31, 2014)

> The "agreement" is loose at best


Based on what? The OP said:


> I sent him my photos saying that he could use them, I just ask that he credit me when he does.


"You can do X, with condition Y" is neither loose nor difficult to understand.



Loose would be something like "OH yeah sure you can use these. Oh hey, if it isn't too much trouble, though, and if it suits you, and if it isn't rainy, and if are aren't feeling too tired, can you please credit me?"


----------



## Designer (Mar 31, 2014)

Yup, you guys are absolutely correct.  She should sue him.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 31, 2014)

> Yup, you guys are absolutely correct. She should sue him.


I suggested at least two prior steps in between where the OP is now and the possibility of lawsuit as a good option. And if both of those fail, then there would no longer be any question as to the musician being aware and acting intentionally in a criminal fashion. So yeah, definitely sue if those don't resolve it.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 31, 2014)

Ok, well just my two cents worth of course but before you go any further with any of the various options it might be a good idea to sit down and have a talk with the musician first.  Obviously the two of you had much different ideas on how this "sharing on social media" thing was going to work.  See if maybe he/she is willing to work with you, maybe a very simple solution can be worked out where you replace the images they currently have with ones that contain a small watermark - that way he/she doesn't have to worry about crediting each image or upload and you get the credit you feel you deserve.

I think too many people nowadays just immediately want to go nuclear without giving a little diplomacy a try first.  Start by giving the guy/gal a little bit of the benefit of the doubt, just assume they weren't trying to "screw you over" and that they are basically decent people who would be willing to do the right thing if given the chance.  Most people don't respond all that well to threats or sword rattling and if it's presented to them in that "how dare you fashion" they get defensive and generally don't respond well.

But if you present this to the musician as a, "Hey I know your a busy person and you probably didn't mean too but it doesn't look like your giving me the photocredit we talked about originally when your posting these photos.  I tell you what just to make it a lot easier why don't I replace those with ones that will have a small watermark on the photo itself, that way you won't have to worry about posting the credit seperately, you can just upload the image and you won't have to worry about it."

You'd be surprised how much further you can get with that approach.  Just a thought.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2014)

Designer said:


> Yup, you guys are absolutely correct.  She should sue him.



That's stupid, and isn't even close to what's been suggested.

Basically, an agreement was made and not honored. I'll go out on a limb and say that the musician isn't of enough consequence to hurt the OP's business, especially when the facts come to light...


----------

