Comments on: Another newspaper that ignores copyright law – and ethics

By: Paul Bradshaw

Paul Bradshaw — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:39:15 +0000

Yes, even though the picture is of you the copyright is owned by the photographer and/or their employer at the time (as this was a competition, copyright is most likely held by the newspaper). Your best bet is to try the owners of the Mail, Associated Newspapers – http://www.associatednewspapers.com/ – there is probably an image library that they can access. This is something your publisher should have some experience with.

By: Valerie Fee

Valerie Fee — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:00:34 +0000

If anyone can help, I’d appreciate an email. I have a photograph of myself taken in 1968 by the Daily Mail for use in a contest they were running in the paper called “Thursday Girl”. I would like to use the photograph as the cover of my autobiography, but my publisher says I need to get permission from the Daily Mail. I have no idea how to go about this and since the picture is of me, do I really have to do this? Thanks for your assistance. (valeriefee@aol.com)

By: Valerie Fee

Valerie Fee — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:59:29 +0000

By: James

James — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:43:15 +0000

The comment on risk is spot on. Even if the Mail used the picture without permission – and they may have paid the magazine for it – what is that picture worth commercially? Nothing. There would be no damages for infringement.
In the UK at least fair dealing for news and current affairs does not extend to photographs.

By: Paul Bradshaw

Paul Bradshaw — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:23:34 +0000

Sadly I know from my own experiences of media lawyers – and editors – you’re very much right. The same applies to investigative journalism: if the story is marketable enough to justify the risk, then publish and be damned. But if it’s worthy yet unpopular and risky, public interest be damned!

By: Matt Roper

Matt Roper — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:53:59 +0000

I’ve really enjoyed the exchanges above – more useful and interesting than any copyright refresher course! But I think Paul’s original post – although not the headline – misses a wider point.

Newspapers and their editors are often far from ignorant of copyright and privacy law. But their legal advice and decision to publish is based on risk.

Put crudely, their judgment is not just about what is right or wrong but what they can get away with.

Has the newspaper been sued? Not that I know of. If it is, will it face a hefty legal payout? Probably not. Will it face a privacy case? Very unlikely.

If the worst the Irish Mail on Sunday can expect is a bill from a photographer for wrongful picture use, it is quite possible that was considered a price worth paying.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:32:44 +0000

In order to establish the manner in which the comments of the journalist distorted the blog remarks of Mrs Schregardus it is essential to show the way the Mail page lay-out suggested they were her own and not those of the reporter, e.g. the banner headline about Male Chauvinist Pigs with the intro mentioning sexist behaviour and foul language etc and the picture of Mrs Schregardus set slap-bang in the middle of it all to convey the impression that these were her sentiments. Incidentally, the picture was in her ownership and it was not on her blog but on a Paris-based online magazine – WHICH CARRIED A COPYRIGHT NOTICE (which the Mail chose to ignore!).

By: JC Dill

JC Dill — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:54:39 +0000

A scan of the paper is Fair Use / Fair Dealing. It shows the way this article was presented (e.g. the 2-line 5-column headline in bold print) more accurately than just excerpting the text. It would be a copyright infringement to copy the layout of the paper for another newspaper, but it’s not a copyright infringement to show a scan of an article (including the layout) for the purpose of commentary etc.

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:34:45 +0000

Interesting that in this post slagging the Mail for ignoring copyright law, you seem to have ignored copyright law.

I’m writing from Canada, but I’m sure copyright law governing this would be the same.

You appear to have a partial scan of a page from the Mail reproduced on your blog. It’s always been my understanding that newspapers maintain copyright over the layout that is published, that is, the appearance of a story, with photos and headlines and cutlines, is their property, that cannot be reproduced without permission.

Yet that’s exactly what you’ve done. Unless of course you had permission from the Mail to scan the page and post it?

By: Matt Wardman

Matt Wardman — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:52:02 +0000

I was wrong on the quotes – sorry, had just checked the indents.

>If I license a photo for editorial use to one publication and another publication decides to use it (not as commentary on the first publication) without contacting me for a license or permission, that’s not Fair Use it’s copyright infringement.

That is my understanding.