The mail of the species is duller than the femail
|
|
|
Daily Mail is accused of photo theft
THAT BASTION OF MIDDLE CLASS, low brow Britain, the Daily Mail has earned the wrath of a blogger who seems to have had some content stolen by it.
The Daily Mail, which sits aloft a high horse looking down on everyone, apparently has the sort of sticky fingers that it usually despises and despite initially trying to do the right thing instead did the wrong thing when it came to using someone else's content.
Alice Taylor, the blogger in question, snapped a couple of pictures of some rather deformed shop window models that purported to represent what people would look like in Uniqlo jeans and in a presumed nightmare idea of perfection.
The Daily Mail asked to use them, refused to pay a fee - actually a charitable donation - was refused permission as a result, and used the photos anyway.
"The Daily Mail got in touch. Could we use the photos, they said. I said, yes, if you donate £250 - a standard photo fee in my book, certainly less than what Getty charges, say - to a charity of my choice," wrote Taylor. "I don't like the Daily Mail, and didn't want to give them commercial use of my pictures for free."
The newspaper refused to pay that fee, citing the reason that it was too expensive for it, and Taylor replied, "Well - it's a no then. (IMHO, obv, the Mail can afford it, and I have no love for that paper so - apols!)" she wrote in response, "Thanks for the interest tho!".
This was apparently accepted by the Daily Mail and Taylor, who had gladly seen her images reproduced elsewhere, thought that the matter was settled. Until, that is, she saw the photos in question being used on the Daily Mail's web site to illustrate a feature about Uniqlo's jeans and how skinny they are.
"I've asked the Daily Mail to now pay up for the unauthorised use - and knowing infringement - of these pics. I'm currently requesting 2 x £1000 charitable donations, which I will request go to MIND and ORG'" she added as she expressed her anger and quadrupled the fee she wanted from the Mail.
The Daily Mail has not replied to Taylor. µ
Tags: Internet
Share this:
Share
In the US, at least, knowing and willful copyright infringement is punished at $250,000 per incident (two photos means two incidents).
Of course this is capitalist GREED. You don't have any right to buy equipment, then make the effort to go and take some pictures and expect to own the pics. How DUMB is that kind of thinking?
Better to stay in bed and let someone else take the pics for all to own, or better yet, let the govt own (e.g. socialism). There is zero logic in trying to earn a living, that is nothing more than simple greed. The best solution is to let the govt take care of you in the first place.
If you want to use someone else's copyrighted material, and they demand a fee for it, then you'd better pay that fee or just not use the material. But if the material isn't so intrinsically valuable, well, why do you want to use it?
In this case, however, it seems to be a photograph of somebody else's window display, in which case it really belongs to the creator of the display - or to the company that hired somebody to create the display, except for the additional original creative contribution by the photographer. So we might have to decide how much that is.
However, that is a matter between the photographer and the owner of the window.
However, again, the Daily Mail would be entitled to hire somebody else to photograph the same window.
I think the question of charitable donations also is unfortunate here. The prospective purchaser probably isn't set up to pay for goods and services on a donate-to-charity basis, and it may bear on things like allowable expenses and tax - and in particular, "Gift Aid".
So just take the fee and then donate fOr yourself.
Alternatively, donate the picture's
s rights to a charity, and let them work out the details of that sort. Something like what happened with [Peter Pan].
So someone who potentially invests a lot of money in some decent camera equipment then takes the time and effort to go out and photograph something, it may be something anyone can photograph or it may be something they spend hours waiting for the right moment (lighting, conditions, etc) shouldn't be rewarded by credit or financially (if they so desire) if a media outlet deems it to be publishable? I'm sure if you created something that other people would want to use that you would want them to pay for the privilege.
As for this person, as it was something taken on a camera phone as it was put on twitpic or something like that, it was still a photo taken by herself and under law, regardless of what it was taken on is her copyright and use of it by anyone else without her permission is breach of copyright. And all she was wanting was for them to donate a bit of money to charity instead of a fee to her for permission to use the photo
if a camera is made by 10 year old Chinese girls. Whoever pushes the button owns the copyright and NO ONE has the right to use the results with prior written permission.
Everyone and every business should know that if you didn't do it, you can't use it.
Corporate capitalist greed in action.
doesn't deserve the equivalent of a month's pay for the Chinese who made that camera, merely for pushing the button on it. Simply not proportional to effort, brains, or utility, just bizarre privilege from being born into Western civ at its high point, a society that's now breaking down from exactly that insane greed. -- The Rich have more greed than you do, too.
No, I'm not defending the Daily Mail. It's just that two stupidities don't make a rational system.
And as a practical matter, they can wait to be sued, and risk damages: almost certainly won't be out any more than if they paid every button-pusher over $400.
This is not the first time the Daily Mail have stolen photographers photos for publishing, breaching their copyrights claiming they can't afford it and as a photographer this really pisses me off. The are a national newspaper with millions of readers each day in print and online, they can afford a standard £250 photo fee, they are just cheapskates.