« Love for Games poster | Main | Delilah Noir »

August 16, 2011


Squander Two


What Alice did and what The Mail did are not the same thing at all. Alice is writing about The Mail and has used screenshots of The Mail, which she attributes to The Mail, to illustrate that story. That's fair use. The Mail weren't writing a piece about Alice or her website or her photography. Had they written a piece about this page, they could have used a screen grab of it, even including the photo, attributed it correctly, and it would arguably have been fair use. But they didn't. They were writing about Gap. They passed the photo off as their own. What they did was plagiarism.

The difference here is the same as the difference between playing a snippet of a record as part of a review of that record (allowed) and sampling the vocals off of someone's else's record and using them as the main hook in your own record (completely illegal without permission). Do you honestly not see any difference there?


Daily Mail print edition used a handful of images from my Faces in Places blog ( http://facesinplaces.blogspot.com ) a few years ago for a double page spread(!). Didn't contact any of the photographers for permission, or pay a penny. They did print the blog address though.

Some 'old media' businesses do seem to think that anything on the web is free to reprint.

Phil Bradley

Gentle_Pursuasion - please don't try and stir. The photograph was quite obviously taken from outside on the pavement and is perfectly legal.

carl von clausewitz

good for you! don't take no shit!

too often individuals (literally one or two people at at time) are forced to accept the terms, conditions, agreements, rules, regulations, whims, fancies, choices, actions, etc., of companies, conglomerates, associations, airlines, fast food chains, churches, governments, etc., and do nothing about it.

switch the role here, let's say you "borrowed" something from DM after being denied...i wonder to what "charity" they would like you contribute.


I would be careful in your dealings with the Daily Mail you may end up with cancer.

Bod for tea

Grrrr.... good for you for perusing this.

Tom (iow)

If you offered a new rate of £1000 per photo to settle the case and this was accepted, you can't then ask for more. But you can certainly now sue for this amount if it is not paid.


To be ultra clear on the "set your own price": they can of course say, our price is £1000 per photo.

I simply pointed out that offer was made BEFORE:

a) they untruthfully told other media outlets that the matter was settled before it was;

b) they continued to use the photographs without permission in the meanwhile, and

c) many, many further examples of similar infringement were coming to light, meaning that they do this all the time.

The offer now is easy: it's a charitable donation, to be set at the rate that they think is fair, given all their behaviours.

Hopefully it's making them think carefully about what they did, and how they do things in the future.


As you're aware from my dance off with the MoS back in the 1840s, Stewie, the most powerful issue on your side here isn't the theft itself; it's that they asked, and you refused, and then they did it anyway, which is called 'flagrancy'. The flagrancy aspect is more serious legally and also knacks the usual excuses of 'We didn't think you'd mind/We thought you'd be overjoyed', 'It's all public domain, surely', etc.

But, as you'll also know, being incandescently in the right is a minor detail in these situations. Actually, your best bet - seeing as it's a Ms 'Ramarez' (what is that? Mexican? Egyptian? Romulan? Whatever is it, I bet it causes cancer) - is probably to write a feature for the DM complaining about 'all these foreigners coming over here and stealing our pictures'. They'll be two weeks into launching a campaign to ban themselves before they pause to check Column A against Column B.


You're a far better person than I - I'd have that money in my own personal bank account before you can say starving African kid.

Victoria hiley

The DM lifted a blog post of mine almost word for word a few years ago. I politely asked for a credit. Did I get one? Of course not.


Skinny legs always look good, people should stop moaning if they can't stay off the chips.

Allan Prince

If everything you've written is true then you have a cast iron copyright infringement case.

The photograph was published by you, you took it. They used it.

Now they don't actually have any say in how much you can ask them to pay for the photos, which is why they're reverting back to the original £250.

If I were you, I'd get a lawyer - at the very least go to a law workshop with trainee lawyers cos this is basic law that they'd really be able to sink their teeth into.


Glad to see you got it resolved Alice, but could anyone clear up the situation of taking photos in a shop (private property) without permission of the owners? Is this legal/gives you the photo rights unless the owner has put up a 'No photography' sign?

Mark Bowen

Just came across this post and although a bit late to the thread here I think this is truly disgusting.

First up as far as I can tell from looking at the images posted above they look like they were taken through the shop window?

If so then you are standing on a public highway and are totally within your right to take a photo of whatever you can see through the lens.

Next the DM were in an email conversation with you where you plainly told them that they couldn't use the images and they (although not in direct terms) agreed to that.

That should have been the end of it but the fact that they went and used the images after you had told them they couldn't is absolute admittance of wrong doing.

The papers get away with way too much these days and I for one don't even get a paper delivered as you can find everything you need on the net for free anyway. There are much better ways to find out about breaking stories than from a paper as you have to wait for them to be printed. Very old school if you ask me.

This is plain and simple theft, no other way about it and any wriggling they try to do after the fact just can't be accepted. What if someone breaks into your house and steals items hoping that even with the fact that they definitely did the crime they think that they can try to wriggle out of it in one way or another.

Simply not on!

Would the DM like it if you were to go into their offices and steal 100,000 of their printed papers and sell them on the streets? I don't think so.

Definitely sue them for every penny you can get as it is blatant theft. I know I definitely would.


I just had a similar problem when DailyMail used my video taken from YouTube to post on their frontpage online. I emailed them and asked to either compensate me or remove the video. They are now offering £50 but isn't this too low? What are your thoughts. How much realistically could I ask? Thank you.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Recent links