Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Am i in a good position to sue (copyright over photographs)?
In a brief description this is the story. I attended court once as a witness as i took some photographs of some people being cruel to an animal. After i gave my evidence i left court and was approached by a local news agency. He said he wanted to use / buy the images and didn't explain who he was going to sell them to. I said yes to selling them to him thinking he was going to use them for local papers to the agreed sum of £75. Over the next two days i found out that he had published them to a number of national newspapers both online and in the papers and even on ITV local news. I had wrote an email to him saying look you didn't explain to me you were going to put them in alot of the nationals and he sent me another £15 to sound nice although he had already made triple this sum. After this was done i had left the situation knowing i had learnt from this although another news agency rang me up and straight away explained who they were and the price plan they offer for the images.
I found out that a month later the images were used again and he didn't even let me know or even give me more money. i spoke to other news agency and they said he owes me money but didn't even talk to me.
Over one year later the images have been published online again without me knowing or offering me any money. He had sent the images to the paper again. This being the 2nd time without telling me.
Would this be a strong sue case against copyright of my images. I am new to newspapers photography so i feel like i have just been taken advantage of because he saw i was young and new to it all and wouldn't mind an extra bit of cash in my pocket.
He didn't discuss or i didn't discuss and rights to the pictures although the other agency did. When the pictures the published again i thought it was the other new agency and when i emailed them they said no it was them that published it it was the first agency so he owes me another payment. I spoke to the editor at The Mail and he thinks i should sue him. I didn't sell him the picture i let him use it to be published not take the piss. I have the full res images he only has 1500px images.
When you sell an image on Alamy the stock site. You clearly state what you want to use it for and how many times then a price will be summed up. If you use it on a number of different occasions i will get new money every time it is used. Just like what this should of been.
3 Answers
- ?Lv 79 years ago
No, you don't have a strong case. You have no case. When you accepted his money for your images, you gave him the right to use them for whatever he wanted. This includes profiting off of them and not giving you a single thin dime. He didn't even have to give you the extra 15 pounds either.
So, hopefully you've learned your lesson. Why are you under the mistaken impression that when you sell something to someone that they have to have your permission to use it how they want? This is like selling your car to someone and then getting mad and suing them if they take your car and win a race with it without giving you any proceeds. The second you took his money, the pictures became his to do with as he pleased and you had no further rights to any of the profits generated from them.
EDIT: Your additional details don't change anything. He doesn't have to explictly tell you what he's using it for. You sold him the images and that means the ownership transfers to him and he can do anything he wants with them and if you dont' like it that's just too bad for you, sorry to break it to you. The rules for using a picture that someone uploads to a website is different from your personal transaction. He doesn't owe you ANYTHING and stop saying he does becuase you're wrong.
YOU'RE the one who didn't lay out the terms of his usage BEFORE you sold it to him. Your mistake was assuming that he would use the images for something. You sold him the images, you then therefore have no legal right to determine how he uses them and after he's already paid you, he doesn't have to keep paying you.
Again, this is like saying that if I buy a baseball at a yard sale from you and then have a famous ballplayer sign it, that I have to get your permission to sell it on eBay because you assumed I'd use it for playing baseball. Sorry kiddo, it doesn't work like that.
- 9 years ago
You sold every exclusive right to the photograph that you had when you sold it to him for £75. That £75 lets him do WHATEVER he want's with the photographs, as he has effectively purchased the rights to them. I think you would have struggled to get more than the total £90 you did off of him though, as thats normally how it works; he pays a small amount, and then sells for a larger amount. I don't think it's really worth it to sue him, but hey ho, there's no harm in trying?
- mnwomenLv 79 years ago
No you gave him the rights to use the pictures when you took the money the first time. You cannot sue for more because he used them. Take this as a lesson learned.
