please empty your brain below

No wonder the country is going to the dogs. If you can't trust the Daily Mail who can you trust.

I'm relieved that you were "alerted" to the issue", rather than noticing it yourself by virtue of being a loyal reader of the paper.

I am impressed. My assertiveness spell must be working

But - personally I'd have asked for a fee (at the industry's standard rates) for its use. Or would it be against your principles to accept money from The Daily Wail?

Oh you should definitely have invoiced them dg.

Had they bought the image legitimately they'd have probably have paid about £70-£100 (from experience). Standard practise for use without permission is to start by doubling and then add on what you think you can get away with. However, those talking about thousands of pounds are (probably) thinking of commercial use which is (sadly) a much better payer than editorial. This sort of thing is happening more and more and I suspect that most of the time the photo-creator isn't even aware.

On The Mail's behaviour, this pretty well-worn quip comes to mind, Blue Witch. Bernard Shaw, at a party, argued that everyone would agree to do anything for money if the price was high enough.

"Surely not".
"Oh yes" he said.
"Well, I wouldn't".
"Oh yes you would" he said. "For instance, would you sleep with me for... for a million pounds?"
"Well, maybe for a million I would, yes".
"Would you do it for ten shillings?" said Shaw.
"Certainly not! What do you take me for?"
"We've established the principle", said Shaw. "We're just trying to fix the price now".

Unlike the average Mail Online reader, I don't do obsessed, bitter and vengeful.

Perish the thought that dg'd be an average Mail Online reader.

Obsessed, bitter and vengeful, no; though hacked off, sometimes: http://
diamondgeezer.blogspot.co...566408896962197


For when you do feel obsessed, bitter and vengeful...

http://www.londonfreelance.org/f...uide/
index.html


Perhaps if it happens again you could request a donation to charity on your behalf.

It was a good photo by the way.

I don't see that asking for the standard industry fee is "obsessed, bitter and vengeful."

All you're doing is protecting the rights of those who make a living from selling pictures.

The more that the media get away with stealing pictures, the more you erode professional photographers' payments.

Mind you, as I've said before, people who use Flickr do make it rather too easy for them.

The fact that they attributed a picture to "Flickr.com" shows a pretty poor understanding of what Flickr is on the part of the Mail.

Whilst I agree with some of the commenters (here and on Flickr) who say that if you'd invoiced them it would have hurt them more, I think that like you DG, I would also have gone down the route of asking them to remove it. The thought of one of my pictures ending up in the Daily Mail (or any newspaper come to that, including the braodsheets who IMO are far from immune to shoddy journalism) makes me very uncomfortable.

loads of money. for you that is. good IP lawyer on no-win-no-fee basis - you might even think about giving up the day job?
but then nah, you'd become a couch-olympicist and eat more macs, drink more cokes, die sooner, perhaps not..











TridentScan | Privacy Policy