Clearly it is open to the copyright owner to adopt the position that we have “violated” their copyright

- - Blog News

…it is not always possible to secure copyright clearance before pictures are published. Our industry therefore adopts the stance that if a picture has no overwhelming artistic value and if there is no issue of exclusivity (ie it is already being published online or elsewhere) then no reasonable copyright owner will object to its being republished in exchange for a reasonable licence fee.

via Land of Oak and Iron.

There Are 15 Comments On This Article.

  1. Wow, what a bunch of ca-ca. Somehow this outlet is both able to find a printable version of the image, along with other outlets and knows how to get a license fee to the artist, but yet somehow can’t secure the agreement to license prior to publishing? That’s the kind of thing I’m sick of. It’s obviously a for-profit endeavor they’re engaged in. Using the car analogy of the linked article, isn’t that like borrowing someone’s van without their permission to operate a delivery business and slipping a few bills under the windshield for gas when you’re done?

  2. “Our industry” = me
    “adopts the stance…no overwhelming artistic value” = my opinion
    “then no reasonable copyright owner” = Okay i admit that i took it without asking and hoped i wouldn’t be caught but please don’t put my balls in a vise for my affrontery and obvious disregard for courtesy and civilized behaviour.

    “reasonable licence fee” = whatever i damn well feel is the lowest amount i think tou are stupid enough to accept so i can get away with so Ii wont have to run it by legal and accounting.

    I hope it costs his publisher enough in legal fees and damages that he gets doesnt get fired but is reduced to licking out the publishers ashtray for the next 40 years.

  3. “reasonable licence fee” = whatever i damn well feel is the lowest amount i think you are stupid enough to accept so i can get away with what I did so I won’t have to run it by legal and accounting.

  4. Wow.

    In this day and age nonetheless. Wow.

    Matthew Fearn, Deputy Picture Editor, The Daily Telegraph can’t figure out if it’s ignorance or stupidity.

  5. I see nothing wrong with what The Telegraph did here. My sympathies goes out to people in the industry like Mr. Fearn who constantly has to deal with unreasonable photographers.

      • Well, I don’t think he stole it (when it comes to copyright stealing is never the right word, since the copyright holder still has his original). I this case The Telegraph simply… pre-bought it.

        • That’s ridiculous. They weren’t ever planning to pay for it. The only reason they agreed to pay him anything is because they got caught using the shot without permission.

          • I agree with the previous poster that ‘stealing’ is the wrong word. It’s copyright infringement. That’s where my agreeing with him stops.

            Even if they were planning to pay a million pounds for it it was still not right for them to just use the image without consent. The photographer might not want to have his image appear in the Telegraph. That is his right as a copyright holder. One can have all sorts of reasons (personal, political, etc. etc.) for not wanting an image to appear in a specific publication.
            This guy at the Telegraph not only seems to think that everything can be bought for a price, he also thinks it’s up to him to decide what that price is.

            • I think I should go to my Chevy dealer and “pre-buy” a corvette. I can always pay later if they catch me. Good grief. What a thoughtless, self-centered idea.

  6. If anyone wishes to use someones photograph for commercial purpose he suppose to ask for a license giving permission to create a copy of this work (to use this work for commercial purpose) and pay a license fee.

    As I understood they used this photograph without even asking or trying to contact the photographer.

    What is going to happen if I will go to the shop and take a piece of bread and eat it without paying for it?

  7. While it is true that it may not always be possible to secure a copyright permission before publishing, it is also true that is it always possible to not publish an image that you do not have permission. This statement says that having the image and publishing it is more important to the publisher than the cost or the rights of the owner. I hope copyright owners read the article and have their lawyers ready, because this organization says it is ready to pay, no matter the cost.