So people have asked for updates as my saga with Thisweek Newspapers, ECM Publishers, Inc. progresses. Normally I would have thought that any upstanding business and its staff would have recognized that a problem exists in their organization and set about ensuring that a problem would be solved quickly and properly. Unfortunately, in this instance, both Thisweek and ECM Publishers, Inc. have taken the very low road and have decided that even though they made a mistake and used my property without my permission, they get to decide what to pay me. That’s not how the world works people.
To recap quickly:
1. This photo taken by me back in February is used as the header for a post about Rosemount’s problems with the MVTA and how I believe them to be wrong.
2. At the end of June I pick up a copy of Thisweek’s newspaper from my front step and immediately recognize my copyrighted and Creative Commons licensed photo on the front page, above the fold. I didn’t give Thisweek Newspapers my permission to use this or any other photo of mine yet there it is on the front page of their newspaper which has an audience of about 18,633 people.
3. I submitted an invoice to Thisweek Newspapers for $300 for the unauthorized use of my photography in violation of my copyright and Creative Commons licensing. Another user on Flickr mentions that copyright violations are worth three to four times what is normally charged for photo use.
4. I made a decision to stop linking to Thisweek’s content as there is no reason that I should give credibility or visitors to a corporation that prides itself in such poor ethical behavior.
5. On July 10th I receive a partial payment and one sentence apology from Larry Werner the General Manager and Editor of Thisweek Newspapers. This partial payment of $50 is 1/6th the total. With this it’s obvious that Thisweek Newspaper and ECM Publishers, Inc. does not take copyright claims for stolen photos used without the authors permission seriously and feels that photography, used above the fold on the front page is not worth more than $50.
6. Another invoice is sent out on Monday July 13th for the remaining $250 that has not yet been paid.
—
I am appalled that journalists who adhere to a high ethical standard are happy to sit idly by while their own company happily stomps all over the people they are supposed to inform. It’s a little difficult for me to understand how the community is supposed to trust an organization to do the right thing when it comes to covering topics of local importance such as businesses or local government screwing the little guy when they do exactly that themselves. This matter is a cut and dried case and one that Thisweek Newspapers and ECM Publishers, Inc. obviously agrees was wrong but yet don’t feel that my work is worth the money that I rightfully deserve.
What do you think of the Thisweek Newspapers, ECM Publishers, Inc. saga so far. Do you believe that it was right for them to not only steal my image but feel it was right for them to only pay 1/6th the invoice instead of the full amount? Whatever you feel about this topic, go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say!
Related posts:
Lazy Lightning Store
Month's Top 5 Commenters
BPAC Financials Archive
Dakota Criminal Complaints
Loading ...
July 13th, 2009 at 8:05 am
I’m guessing that $50 is what they probably pay their photogs, and that a sweet note on top of it is probably enough for you.
I wish I had the capacity to care less about ThisWeek, but it’s hard to ignore them any more than I already do. ;)
July 13th, 2009 at 8:10 am
edit: “…and they they thought a sweet note…”
I can’t do a damned thing right pre-caffeinating. Why do I try?
July 13th, 2009 at 8:19 am
based on the ruling in Duluth in the file sharing copyright case, you should be able to get afew thousand, at least.
Personally, I’d contact a lawyer and go after them since they aren’t paying you what you are asking for. They broke the law. You tried to be nice, and they aren’t being nice back..
July 13th, 2009 at 8:25 am
They screwed up, they’ve admitted that they screwed up, yet they didn’t want to cough up the small amount of cash that would close the matter.
Idiotic.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:45 am
I don’t know what the laws are, but I wonder if there’s an issue with accepting the partial payment while waiting for the rest if ThisWeek doesn’t agree that it’s a partial payment.
A couple years ago I ran into an awkward scenario. Several months went by where I would send my half of the rent to the landlord & I assumed my roommate was doing the same. Turns out, he wasn’t paying any rent, but that didn’t stop the landlord from accepting my half the rent. after 3 or 4 months, the landlord tried to evict my roommate, but the judge denied her – for several reasons – but one of which was that she had been cashing my checks without noting anywhere on it that it was a partial payment. The judge said that legally, she should have either not cashed my check until she received my roommates check so she could make sure she was getting a full payment, or she should have noted on the check before cashing it that she knew it was only a partial payment. Otherwise, the judge said, regardless of what our contract said, if she accepted a check for less than that each month, she was just SOL.
But now you’ve got me scared that I’ve pirated one of your photos for my blog and I’ll be receiving a bill. Hopefully, though, since I have a total of 12 readers, I will get a discount.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:46 am
To be honest, we pulled down the greed tube where they used put that paper and the sun current. Didn’t want any of them.. now they either put them in the mailbox (felony perhaps?) or they pile them on the base of the mailbox post. We should go after them for dumping garbage.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Reuben wrote:
I’ve been advised not to cash the check.
My Creative Commons licensing allows for use by non-profit entities with attribution. Thisweek is not a non-profit nor did they attribute the photo to me.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Is ECM publications in such financial straights that it has to steal images from another “news” source without acknowledgment? Then when they get caught with their proverbial pants down they send a token payment without paying the full bill. I can see the headlines now……”Local news blogger takes suburban newspaper chain to court for copyright infringement”. Bill, Larry just doesn’t comprehend the gravity of the situation.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Seems really dumb to me. Either claim you did nothing wrong and dont pay it, or admit your mistake, say you are sorry, and pay the Bill. Sorry, could not resist that last part.
I really dont get it though. Seems stupid. The payment/apology is admitting guilt. So assuming you want to persue this the burden is on them to prove that a front page picture used without permission is only worth $50.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:57 am
The way I see it is that you have ECM/This Week over a barrel. As it was already said, they admitted guilt by ponying up basically nothing in the form of a rather insulting $50 payment. The bigger problem here is that This Week Newspapers apparently thinks other people’s work isn’t worth the sticker price (after they get busted stealing it). How would This Week feel if people stole their precious stacks of newspapers because it’s easier than buying? What if people started right clicking and re-posting photos from the This Week websites? If they don’t respect the Creative Commons licensing of others, why should anyone respect intelectual property or copyrights of their content?
To me, this is about something more than a dollar amount, it’s about respecting online content when it clearly has stipulations attached to it.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:41 am
I’m not a big fan of copyrights in general, but there is a system setup for this and Flickr makes it completely obvious how photos are licensed. What I really hate, though, is when people don’t attribute work to the author regardless of how it is licensed. That’s just classless. Thisweek should know better and they are in the wrong here.
I think it would be in their best interest to settle up with you but I don’t fully understand the financials and the impact of the negative attention.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:04 am
I’m surprised they didn’t just pay your invoice, or at least attempt to contact you and negotiate a settlement if they didn’t want to just pay an invoice. Note that paying the invoice may have left them in a similar position to you cashing the check. Did the check reference your invoice, or could it be taken to be just a check sent unrelated to your invoice?
To say I’m disappointed in Thisweek is an understatement. Yet I have found myself extremely disappointed by people at a couple different companies over the last few weeks.
Another note, this could be an interesting news story itself, related to the challenges businesses have when using web resources in their business, as well as the challenges citizens have in general when putting their property on the web.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I guess they feel that *they* get to dictate the fine that they receive for theft.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I’ve been reading the site for quite a while and figured iit is time to start commenting on some of your topics.
On this one, I think jorn has it right. Even though the photo might be worth $250, they would never pay that much for a photo….even for front page above the fold. $50 seems about right for what they can afford, given that they are in the dying print publishing industry. Yes, they screwed up big time, but in the end even if you push this to the bitter end and win, the “damages” aren’t going to be based on what you think the photo is worth, but on what the marketplace thinks the photo is worth. I’m guessing they know what that amount is, which is how they came up with the $50.
So…..you can either a) cash the check, start linking to them again (maybe referring to them as “This Weak”) and keep doing what you do well; or b) spend time and energy trying to collect an amount that is probably not realistic. I vote for (a), but since this is my first comment I’m not sure my vote should even count.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I don’t know what they are thinking, but my guess is that they’ve thought about how much you could get in a lawsuit and figure it is not more than the $50 they sent you. But I think that the legal and financial issues really shouldn’t be what they are thinking about. I’d be really embarrassed if I were them. You’d think they’d want to resolve the issue as quickly and quietly as possible by paying the invoice.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Make sure late payment fees are added to to the invoice every 30 days. ECM sucks canal water!
July 13th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
PineTar, I see what you’re saying, but in the end, Bill has the right to charge whatever he likes for his photos. Even if TW thinks it’s $50, it’s not, and had they asked permission, they would have either a: paid the $300, or b: found another photo. Since they didn’t follow protocol, it’s their loss, and they no longer have the option to pay whatever they think it’s worth.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Being a fellow blogger and photographer, I understand Bill’s point perfectly. It’s cut and dry. The paper used his photo, without his authorization or knowledge. Having a similar assortment of photos on Flickr, I utilize the same CC rules as he does, and while I can’t say my photos have yet been found good enough worth stealing, I have been contacted by a few groups (non prof) to use my photos, and I’ll grant that, citing the source.
By sending Bill the 50, as already known, they’ve been caught with their hand in the metaphorical cookie jar, and know it, and make a very lame attempt to make good on it.
I will gladly watch this unravel, and see how a single person can stick it to a company. To me, it’s not about the money (because it’s not my photo) it’s about the crappy ethics that large companies try to save a buck (or 300 at least in this case) and it’s just not right. Personally, I could care less about the kid pulling one of my photos off the net for a school project, however, if you’re trying to make a buck using my work, I better be getting my cut!
July 13th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I’m curious what Bill’s options are at this juncture. One option would be small-claims court. IANAL but I heard it said that most civil court decisions are limited to “actual harm done” and providing recompense for that. If ThisWeek stole a physical photograph worth 300$ from Bill and destroyed it, the most he could expect to get from the courts would be the replacement cost of the photograph.
But what’s the damage here? Bill suffered the potential loss of a sale, but how much is that worth? 50$? 300$?
Though, I suppose one could make the same argument of pirating MP3s and we all know what the damages for that were!
July 13th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
This issue would not be pursued in small claims court, it would have to be tried in federal court which has exclusive jurisdiction over copyright claims.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Incredibly disrespectful on so many levels. Not only do they steal your photo and use it without your permission, but they insult you further by cutting you a check 1/6th of what you asked for. Just wow. I wouldn’t even bother giving them another chance, you’ve been MORE than fair thus far considering the circumstances. I think you show them how serious you are and hire a lawyer and sue them.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I understand this discussion from all angles. I am a graduate of the University of Minnesota School of Journalism where ownership of product is preached from Day 1. I don’t know how this particular issue with Bill’s photo will turn out and in general, I think people tend to overprice their photographs, but time will tell.
I will offer my opinion on what lies ahead for the future of photo copyright. I think without doubt and due primarily to the advent and spread of the internet and cellphone cameras, the ownership value and rights of ALL photos will be diminished. And the reason is twofold. 1) there is little creative talent involved. 5 chimpanzees and 5 journalism students could both be taught to point and click a camera and set loose at a place like Woodstock or WE Fest and told to shoot for an hour and that only 1 photo would be selected to win a $500 prize. The odds are virtually equal that the winning photo will come from one of the chimps as from the journalism student. So how can it be argued that there is skill and talent involved? Getting a good photo is more a function of being at the right place at the right time, having the proper equipment and then being able to adjust it post shot via software or other techniques. It is not the same as painting or writing or designing or invented. Taking a photo has become easier because the equipment is more accessible and the cost has virtually vanished. So eventually, this will be argued before the Supreme Court and a reasonable ruling will be made.
The second impetus to making a change in how this now works is the annoying papparazzi and media that have sprung up to hound celebrities and POLITICIANS and anyone of interest. Because these people are so annoying and perhaps even dangerous (i.e., Princess Diana), legislation will someday find its way into law to make this more two-sided in that the subject of the photo will be entitled to payment —perhaps even the majority of the payment, and this will greatly suppress the “photo takin’ industry”.
So I guess Bill should try to get it while he can. The laws will someday change.
Too many people think they are Ansel Adams with a camera. I think back to famous photos that have survived the test of time. I think of the soldiers raising the flag on Iwo Jima and what a powerful photo that is. I think these kinds of photos come along once or twice in a lifetime and again, timing is everything.
In my opinion, we recently had another of these photos taken that I think will last forever and that is the one of all the passengers from the USAir crash standing on the wings of the plane as it sinks into the Hudson River. Now if Bill’s photo were in that class, he would have a stronger argument.
My niece got married recently and had two photographers at her wedding/reception/dance and they took over 2000 photos –all of which are available for purchase on their website. They have their logo burned into the samples on the website so that they can’t be copied without paying for them. I thought about this. It has lowered the value of the photographer while raising the price. It used to be that the photographer had to know something about light and speed and film and focus and alignment etc. THERE WAS TALENT INVOLVED. And he had to have a darkroom and be a chemist and know a little bit about alot of things. Digital photography allows virtual idiots (and I’m one of them) to take photos, crop, highlight and print or send. Who among us couldn’t take 2000 photos and end up with 20 or 30 that make a nice album? And given the over 50% divorce rate in the USA, can you think of any expense that is a bigger waste than wedding photography?
To prove my point, I’m going shopping for tuxedos for my 3 chimps this afternoon!
July 14th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
It would if they had come to me first and asked me to set my price before they chose to print their image. Unfortunately they do not get to set the price after the fact.
The rest of your comment, while interesting, has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
This argument has nothing to do with the actual value of the photo. Its a photo of a bus turning the corner. I could take the same picture 100 times this afternoon for pennies.
The issue is using the photo on the front page of the newspaper and not asking permission or crediting the photographer. I dont see anywhere in this thread where Bill has claimed there was anything special about the photo.
If I steal a car, and then run it into a tree, I dont get to just pay the owner the fair value of the car and call it good. There are other penalties associated with stealing.
July 14th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Attached is the link to Thisweeklive.com and their “terms of Use”. Check the copyrights and trademark paragraph:
http://www.thisweeklive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=105&Itemid=189
Larry, I understand where you are coming from, BUT the law IS the law considering copyright infringement…. This appears to be cut and dried concerning Bill’s photo.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
It doesn’t seem like a well-thought-out decision on their part. They should have just paid the money, apologized, and moved on.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
I agree with Bill, but I am no lawyer.
Had ‘That Year’ Newspaper and their parent company ‘HAL’ asked prior to publishing the photo, it probably would have cost them next to nothing, since Bill is such an outstanding guy. He would have wanted a photo credit and [I assume] a steaming plate of ‘hot wings from hell’ from them. As it turned out, they didn’t ask, they just went ahead & took the easy way out, and published it without verifying ownership & ensuring permission was obtained.
They just freakin’ lucky Bill didn’t send them an invoice for $5,000. Since it’s after the fact, he could probably charge them anything he wanted, and they’d be hard-pressed to defend their actions in court and weasel out of paying the bill.
August 15th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
This issue has been resolved to my satisfaction and the original thread will remain open until Tuesday morning for comment after which time it will be closed to comments. This one is now closed.