Moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2295 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4259 times:
I've had this sort of thing happen to friends in the past - usually the news agency will contact them (or they contacted the agency first) and worked out a price for use. While it would be nice to be asked first, when it's a breaking news story, they may not have the time to contact you and wait for you to respond. If they haven't already contacted you about it, I would contact them with a reasonable fee for usage.
Iamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4147 times:
Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 4): Any lawyers here? Would this sort of use really constitute fair use in terms of the law?
IANAL, but not as far as I know. US copyright law in regards to Fair Use isn't very specific, and judgements often seem close to arbitrary, but it does lay down four criteria for assessment:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I could hardly imagine, if tested, any judge ruling a direct copy of a photograph for commercial use as fair use if contested, but it's not worth either side getting heavily invested in it.
However, since Mr. Umana doesn't seem to chimed in yet, aren't we jumping to conclusions in assuming that he didn't authorize it?
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4125 times:
Quoting Compdude (Reply 6): Legal or not it would be a waste to go against CNN for something like this, you will end up paying 100 times more in legal fees than what the photo is worth and most likely still lose the case.
When it comes to the news outlets they will claim fair use. Your right tho the legal expense needed will outweigh the going rate for usage of the photo. They know that. If you get paid, great if not your recourse is limited.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3905 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3738 times:
News media like CNN are not going to display your name and that's fine, as long as they pay. It's also sort of understandable that they cannot wait for prior permission to publish your photo in many cases. They need that photo now, or not at all.
What they should do is contact you and pay a reasonable amount. What is reasonable is debatable, or course, but I don''t think $300 is that bad.
Obviously this type of usage is not fair use, or CNN would not have paid. You don't suddenly lose your rights just because a photo is deened newsworthy.
Our fellow photographer Daniel Fall informed me lastweek that a major Swedish newspaper had used one of my photos both in print and on its website. They did not contact me. I e-mailed them, demanding 500 euros. They replied immediately, saying not contacting me was a mistake by an overworked nightshift and offering 400 euros, which they said is twice their going rate. This I accepted.
So, it's not useless to go after your money in cases like this.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)