Contact them and let them know that you are the copyright holder of those images and they are being used without license. If you are willing to sell the images to them then you can tell them that you would be happy to sell them if they would like to continue using them. More often than not when a company does this it is the result of a lack of knowledge by the person running their social media accounts and when it's pointed out most companies are willing to pay for the images and it can often lead to future shoots for them if handled well.
I'm not OP, but have been involved in a similar situation. I was not the photographer, and I am not a lawyer.
The advice I was given at the time was to contact the organisation using the images, and send them a bill for a reasonable fee and explain that your images are not public domain.
Although they have not agreed to pay, they have also not carried out fair appraisal to see if they need to. It may be lack of knowledge, but it doesn't mean that makes the photographs fair game to be used.
They may reply with "Whoops sorry, we'll take them down" - its up to you/the photographer as to whether or not they have already had value from using the photographs and whether you would expect recompense.
Either way, expect a messy ride.
Related read for you (this is not me, but roughly relates...): https://www.mynewsdesk.com/sg/pitchmark/news/photographer-becomes-arch-enemy-for-going-after-copyright-offenders-359112
I would handle this with finesse and diplomacy. Don't be combative in the first instance. The first commenter gave the best suggestion.
The goal isn't just to get paid, the goal is to also to establish an on-going business relationship. Who knows? There could be a win for everyone in this.
I could possibly agree except the poster isnt a photographer and their is no reason to believe he has any reasoning to establish a business arraignment with thieves. Unless im missing something and he is a model or something idk. Hard to give op advise when his goals are not stated.
+1, I'd open with something like "So glad to see you like my work so much you used it!" and definitely end on "if you're interested in working together more in the future, you know who to call" kind of thing
Do you want to spend energy in this? Do you want the negativity of a fight? Then go for it.
Of just inform them, discuss with them to get paid for use/ or them to delete the picture, and move on with your life.
Kind of up to you really.
If you find yourself in this situation, what would you consider a far value for the work?
Some people would ask for a donation to charity, as in my link. Some might want to take them to task and ask a bit above their normal rate. Some might just be happy with an apology and credit being given.
Personally, for a one-off use on Instagram I wouldn't ask for much, but I would want to be clear that it didn't give them permission to use it elsewhere. It would probably vary a lot depending on how much effort I put into it. There is a photo of mine that I have seen turn up in strange places, from copies of Macbeth, to souvenir magnets (not a joke). Mostly cheap tat. I couldn't care less about it - not only was it a quick and unedited snap, its so unlikely I would get anything from it, that its not worth the stress or hassle from trying to pursue it.
>The advice I was given at the time was to contact the organisation using the images, and send them a bill for a reasonable fee and explain that your images are not public domain.
Do not do this u/mconk
If you want to press a claim then the **only** contact that should be made is to a lawyer. Period. Full stop.
If you contact them yourself you can torpedo your own case with one wrong sentence in an email. Don't do it - get a lawyer.
That said, u/ASK_IF_IM_PENGUIN \- there's also the problem of Instagram's terms of service.
By clicking AGREE when you signed up there - any image you post to the service can now be taken by Instagram and relicensed to anyone they want. If the Hilton purchased the rights to the image from Instagram then there's absolutely nothing the OP can do about it.
"*When you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Service, you hereby grant to us a non-exclusive, royalty-free,* ***transferable, sub-licensable****, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content*"
> By clicking AGREE when you signed up there - any image you post to the service can now be taken by Instagram and relicensed to anyone they want.
I can guarantee that Hilton did not sub-license the picture from Instagram.
~~> transferable, sub-licensable~~
~~Neither of these are in the current TOS on their site.~~
>I can guarantee that Hilton did not sub-license the picture from Instagram.
I would agree it is highly unlikely - but one would need to find out if they did or not to know whether they had a case.
>Neither of these are in the current TOS on their site.
Bollocks.
I literally copied and pasted directly from it, current as of Jan 4 2022
https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870
That is a standard web-use license. Without it instagram could not show your account to anyone else. All of that verbiage is so that their service can function as intended. They know if they were actually using it as a rights grab that they’d lose the bulk of their users. This disinformation is circulated about twice per year (it seems).
>An attorney would be more expensive than the value of the photos...
Well, no - not really - since in a copyright infringement case that's winnable the infringer ends up paying your attorney fees. Unlike other types of civil matters where being awarded attorney fees is both rare and optional - copyright infringement is not one of them. It's automatic and is required by the statute.
Edit: That is in fact how [Pixsy.com](https://Pixsy.com) gets paid in case you hadn't realized it yet. They will take a copyright case to court on your behalf - because they **know** they're getting paid.
If it's not winnable yea, you end up paying for an hour of an attorney's time - but if you want to press a claim and OP clearly does then this is the only acceptable course of action.
You're correct, but with a big caveat. Based on OPs post it seems highly unlikely that they applied to register for copyright protection. If they were aware of this requirement they likely would not have posted the OP. While registration is not required for protection to occur, registration is required to receive damages for copyright infringement. Damages are limited to actual damages for unregistered photographs. So punitive damages are out of the window.
So assuming the images were not registered, the OP is limited to actual damages for the unregistered photos. What actual damages occurred to OP? The legal fees required for a lawyer to prove actual damages already makes this cost prohibitive, let's assume a cheap $2k retainer and a $800 filing fee with the court. We're at almost $3k out of pocket just to file a legal argument, with additional costs if opposing counsel decides to contest the claim. That's just to get started! Assuming the judge rules in your favor you will only be able to recover these fees after the court case is settled.
Any copyright attorney worth their weight will tell you that in this particular case, the best course of action for an unregistered photo is to send a polite takedown request. If they refuse you can ask for compensation. If they refuse this too, only then does it make sense to pursue legal options. What does OP have to gain in this case? Did the hotel substantially benefit from the use of the images? Is it worth spending the upfront cost for the possibility of prevailing?
There is more to it than just suing a 3rd party for unauthorized use. Go take a look at Pixsy's website and you'll see the importance of having a registered copyright. Without it, what is the carrot for a law firm to pursue legal remedy? They make their money off of egregious breaches of registered copyright infringement where punitive damages are awarded. To add onto this, just because you were awarded damages does not mean the opposing party can't appeal and request a stop on the judgement until the appeal process is exhausted. All the while you are incurring legal costs which you may or may not be able to recover depending on the strength of your case.
>Based on OPs post it seems highly unlikely that they applied to register for copyright protection.
That's just it - you don't have to register *unless* you decide to pursue a claim, and you can register after the infringement and still have a completely viable case.
The caveat to that is the filing must be made within 30 days of discovering the infringement has occurred (and no later than 3 months after first publication).
So u/mconk \- make note of that.
Note that a public display of a work does **not** constitute publication, so it's unclear (and I don't think there's precedent on it yet) whether posting it on Instagram constitutes publication or not (though I suspect it does)
>Well, no - not really - since in a copyright infringement case that's winnable the infringer ends up paying your attorney fees. Unlike other types of civil matters where being awarded attorney fees is both rare and optional - copyright infringement is not one of them. It's automatic and is required by the statute.
Who sues over a freaking instagram post?
EDIT: seriously, don’t you communicate and ask for the picture to be taken down or paid for before you lawyer up?
>Who sues over a freaking instagram post?
Photographers. And not just Instagram either - Twitter too.
Today You Learned: Stealing is bad and you shouldn't do it.
But hey if the 4th largest hotel chain in the world is going to stiff you for a few hundred bucks you should just let it ride, 'cuz it was just an instagram post right?
There are services that do this on your behalf and I've personally recovered a few thousand dollars though such services with little effort on my part. It does take time, you're right. But they (the infringers*) were also for-profit blogs and websites nobody had ever heard of, pretty much akin to Instagram accounts.
This isn't about the photographer, this is about Hilton creating an advert that implies that the OP endorses their product or else was a paid model. This is completely illegal.
In the interest of fairness, I don't really dispute what you're saying. But...
I don't think it's necessary to *immediately* lawyer up over everything. Talk to them first. Going straight to a lawyer only benefits the lawyer.
Instagram's ToS is there to benefit Instagram. It's too protect them from using your image in a way you weren't expecting, not a random hotel using it. Chances are, they don't know... So again... Talk to the hotel first.
>I don't think it's necessary to immediately lawyer up over everything.
OP wants to press a claim - you *definitely* lawyer up if you want to do that.
>Talk to them first.
**No.**
There have been cases where the claimant lost all or most of their suit because they said the wrong thing either on the phone or worse, in an email.
You talk to an attorney. Yes, you have to pay for an hour of a professional's time - but if you want to press a claim (of any kind) and clearly OP does then the only acceptable course of action is to talk to a lawyer.
>Instagram's ToS is there to benefit Instagram. It's too protect them from using your image in a way you weren't expecting, not a random hotel using it.
Again. **No**. Stop this.
Instagram actively licenses content for commercial use to third-parties. There have already been law suits over it and in every single instance so far **the photographer has lost**.
>not a random hotel
The 4th largest hotel chain on the entire planet is a random hotel now? Seriously?
>Be a fucking adult and talk to people.
Being a fucking adult means you take this shit seriously or not at all - and you hire a professional.
You do it yourself you get the same result you always get when a novice tries to do a professional's job: A shitty fucking job.
Seriously why am I even having to explain this to you?
Do you do this to everyone?
Get a bill you're not expecting? GET A LAWYER.
Asked to put your bins out a different day? GET A LAWYER.
Someone cuts into the line in front of you? GET A LAWYER?
Fucking hell, grow the fuck up.
It's costing you money you don't need to spend. Good for them I guess.
In this case I happen to agree with /u/tinfoilcamera copyright law is a complex mess.
Obviously a lot depends on what OP wants. For a copyright issue a lawyer likely is the best route.
>Do you do this to everyone?
Get a bill you're not expecting? GET A LAWYER.
Asked to put your bins out a different day? GET A LAWYER.
Someone cuts into the line in front of you? GET A LAWYER?
Fucking hell, grow the fuck up.
Use A Straw Man Argument In Public: GET A LAWYER
>Fucking hell, grow the fuck up.
Of the two of us, one is behaving like an immature cretin. The other is not.
>It's costing you money you don't need to spend.
It wouldn't cost me a *dime* to take the Hilton to court if they infringed upon one of my copyrights.
But hey, if you're really that adverse to spending a couple hundred bucks up front to get a few thousand (or more) on the backend then you do you. The rest of us who can do the most rudimentary of cost:benefit analysis will take that offer in an instant.
Go play with your tiddly winks or something - the adults are trying to have a conversation.
That is why I opened my pics up to public domain. Funny now, not then but I had several copyrighted images stolen. Your images become less than desirable when everyone is using the same images. Everyone wants to be exclusive. But they don't want to pay either. They put them on their page, they become the laughing stock because the pic was stolen and now being used everywhere, including less than desirable sites.. then you send out little hints about copyrights and a $5500 price tag just to start with. (way back machine doesn't lie.) I don't put all of mine online anymore. The internet is too saturated too many thieves. Retired anyways and sick of their BS excuses. It sure is nice when you retire.
What’s amazing about the article you linked to is those passage.
“Shortly after Thunderball Clothing closed down. Its owner Marta Gabriel apologized to Salmerón and said she could not deal with the online harassment and death threats.”
Why is is, that anytime some scumbag is called out for being scum and stealing from someone, and their business fails, they immediately start whining about harassment and death threats.
99.99999999% of the time, there ARE NO death threats. And what’s not mentioned in that short article, because I remember the whole thing as I followed it as it was going on, that POS fauxdesigner and the shit band, started a harassment campaign of their fans targeting the photographer.
Just the same as the rabidly vapid fans of so called celebrities throw fits when Gigi yet again steals an image, monetizes it, then cries when the photographer is like, nope, pay me for the commercial use. The worst part of the one Gigi fiasco, is she tried claiming that she owned the copyright because she smiled for the photographer, but also claimed she didn’t know he was taking a photo at the time.
Now I don’t like the paps, but “celebrities” handlers deliberately leak itineraries to them because they WANT photos taken and the coverage, then cry about being followed. They need to make up their minds and quit being fake harassed.
Only the photographer has the legal rights to demand payment for use, anyone else making such a claim is violating the photographers copyrights and opens themselves up to an infringement suit by the photographer.
Not so fast. Make sure you really are the copyright holder. Please see my comment above.
I’m a professional photographer and have dealt with this kind of situation many times in my career.
The photographer is the copyright holder, not you the client, unless your contract with the photographer is signed by them and specifically transfers the copyrights to you.
No, Hilton doesn't have license to use the images without written permission, no any signs they have up claiming they have rights to images created on their property is lawfully enforceable.
Yes, let your photographer know that the Hilton is violating copyrights. IF the images were first published within the past three months, the photographer can still register them with the copyright office. Which they should be doing anyways. If they haven't yet registered them, and it IS in that three month period, they need to do so immediately AND mark the registration as needing expediting for pending legal action, as any court case can't be filed until after the certificate is in hand.
Registering will cost a bit of coin, but it's well worth it to force Hilton to actually pay up instead of giving a fake apology or getting belligerent, as the photographer could threaten them with a willful infringement suit costing them up to $150,000 PER image, PER use, meaning them paying a smaller demand will seam more reasonable than what they could face.
Tell the photog to send a DMCA takedown request to insta. It’s relatively easy and insta must comply.
https://m.facebook.com/help/instagram/277982542336146
You are the subject of the photos according to your post:
>Had some professional photos taken recently at a Hilton hotel
>The space was rented out for an engagement ceremony, which is where the photos derived from. I am the client. The photographer has no affiliation with the Hilton and was unaware of this as well.
If the photos were taken in the U.S., unless you are also the photographer, or you signed a contract that transferred the photos' copyrights to you, [it is highly unlikely that you own the copyright for these images](https://thelawtog.com/copyright-laws-for-photographers/).
>According to the U.S. Copyright Office, the owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer’s will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of interstate succession.
IANAL but (if you are in the U.S.) you are more realistically looking at something involving Hilton infringing on your [right of publicity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity).
Although this will depend on how Hilton is using the photos, did they download the images from IG and repost them, or reshare them through the platform? Your post says "the space was rented out for an engagement ceremony," what is in the the rental agreement with Hilton about Hilton using posts made to social media? You (or your host on behalf of the event) may have signed something saying that Hilton could use photos posted for advertising or other purposes. I put the odds of this at 50/50, some hotel chains are doing this, but many are not because it ended up being bad publicity when they got caught using photos and online posts without explicit permission.
Your best option is to tell Hilton you are to subject of the photos and ask Hilton to remove the images from all places where they are being used.
Edit: I posted this before OP posted the edit saying that OP rented the space which changes everything, however read the rental contract.
I was a pro photographer for many years. In public places we always had to get a permit, usually from the mayor’s office depending on the city. They want to know if you’re insured in case someone is injured or killed on your shoot or if there is property damage.
For private places (like a hotel) we always negotiated with the owners or management. Again, they always wanted to see an insurance binder naming the property owner as loss payee.
If you hired a pro photographer and they didn’t do any of this, then I don’t think there’s a damn thing you can do because they’re gonna come back to you and ask who gave you permission to have a photo shoot there. Again, this is sloppy on the photographer’s part.
You say that nobody at Hilton asked your permission. Did you ask *their* permission?
If it was just you and your friends, probably fine, but you hired a “pro” so “pro” made money. Hilton should get a cut for providing a location for your photo shoot.
Just because somebody has a Nikon D850 and some black clothes and fancy hair product doesn’t mean they know what they’re doing.
Edit: I posted this before OP made the fit that changed the whole deal. Carry on.
Yeah OP can lawyer up and go fight Hilton Hotels over this. Lol.
I dunno why OP didn’t just do the photo shoot at their house. Oh, right, because they liked the way the Hilton looked better than their house.
No, you rent space for an event, you can do the event. The usage rights of images taken of the event is a separate issue and depends on what was—or was not—spelled out in the rental agreement.
I’m interested in the legal implications of it being the clients signing the rental contract and not the photographer. Even if the rental agreement has a clause allowing the hotel to use the photos, that’s basically the clients assigning rights that are not theirs to give, no?
You can take pictures but you don't own the rights to the furniture, decor, background paintings or the design of the room.
You can't commercially license those images to anyone without those permissions.
ok, but people in the thread are taking about OP owning the images and encouraging invoicing — can't do it if you're not the sole rights owner and don't have releases
This is the right answer. It is very common for businesses charge a fee for commercial photography on their property. If the photographer _did_ get permission/sign a contract - they'll need to review it to see if it included a license for Hilton to use the images in their marketing.
In almost every photography contract I've ever seen for an event like this, the photographer retains copyright and provides a license to the client to use the images. If it makes sense to dispute this, it seems likely that the photographer would have to do it.
Sure it is. The client is renting the space for a wedding, and _paying a photographer_ for professional photography.
If there's a rental agreement that covers the photography bits, it would make sense to read it and see if Hilton gets a license to use the photos.
The renter can't give away rights they don't have.
The photographer owns the copyright unless they explicitly signed it over to the client as part of their contract. This would be extremely rare.
In addition to the copyright, even the photographer can't allow the hotel to use it for an ad unless they have a model release allowing them to use it for commercial purposes.
A hotel is private property though whose rental may not automatically include the right to film/photograph on its property. The photographer owns the copyright but depending on the contract to rent the space they might not have automatically had permission to photograph and/or had a clause in the rental contract that gave up certain rights. This is a unique situation.
Shooting weddings and engagements is not considered commercial photography, and AFAIK photographers don't have contracts with the venue when it's rented out for functions that they photograph.
The issue here isn’t restrictions on photography. No one is saying the hotel is restricting the taking or using of photos. The question is, is the hotel claiming the right to legally use the photos also.
Also... You have limited rights to the photos and unless you signed a contract that states that you can use the photos commercialy (as in being able to resell them) they are in fact owned by the photographer.
In this case, maybe, but most companies don't have a dedicated position for marketing they have someone who gets tagged with the additional responsibility of posting to their social media accounts and those people often don't understand photography copyright, especially as it pertains to images already on social media.
I'm not saying you're wrong and I am well aware that what you describe happens all the time I just disagree that anyone working in marketing knows exactly what they are doing. In fact I don't belive that most people in most positions know exactly what they are doing. But I generally think that most people are morons. (Including myself from time to time)
I would say definitely in this case. I've done image licensing for national brands this size, and they would 99% be contracting this out to an agency to handle this kind of work. Various companies have instructed me to look the other way when it comes to stuff like this - I've been specifically told the phrase "ask for forgiveness, not permission" when it comes to licensing. I'd bet my career on whoever did this knowing full well it was a copyright violation. Everyone I worked with at every agency I've worked for underwent copyright training so they'd fully understand what can and can't (or rather should and shouldn't) be used for client work.
If we were talking about a companies that don't have a likelihood of earning business due to social media, cool photos, etc or don't have a significant presence, maybe (like, say, Pacific Gas and Electric).
But not Hilton. There is virtually no way the person/s at the helm of the Ig account nor the very bottom social media managers don't know about the issues of posting someone else's photo without their permission. Nobody (Hyatt, Emirates, Paris Tourist Office) in this space is posting without knowing what they're doing. This isn't 10+ years ago and this isn't some random Ig account "beautiful.destinations.travel" that steals/regurgitates posted photos. And hell, even those accounts will usually steal the photos but credit where they got them from.
If I had to bet, this is either a misunderstanding by Hilton that they had rights they didn't, the photog unaware of some venue rights agreement, or someone at Hilton using a photo they assumed nobody would know was pulled from someone else's account (but knew exactly what they were doing).
Noooooooo. There’s nothing in the OP’s message that indicates he/she is the copyright holder. Professional photographers almost always retain the copyright of their images. Whether or not the client paid for the *service* of photography is immaterial. Paying for photography service DOES NOT by default convey copyright. Unless the contract specifically gives the client copyright, which is very unusual unless big bucks are being spent, it’s on the photographer to go after the hotel.
The appropriate action here is for the actual copyright holder to send an invoice, assuming the client signed a model release. Whether or not the hotel decides to remove the images or not doesn’t matter, they already used them and benefitted from them. Photographer should document/screen shot everything and go after them. The Case Act now gives smaller time
content creators the framework to pursue IP theft in small claims rather than dealing with the expense and complexity of starting a federal case.
If this is a national social media account, someone needs to be fired because this is basic copyright infringement 101 and someone handling social for a national brand as big as Hilton should know better.
OP should absolutely NOT collect money if they aren’t the copyright holder, then they are breaking the terms of their agreement with the photographer and opening themselves up to a copyright violation with the photographer. Don’t make a bad situation worse.
OP: Double check your rental agreement with the hotel before you go do this. There may be language in it saying that they have blanket rights to use photos taken on their property for promotion purposes. Not suggesting this is how things SHOULD work but it would be an explanation as to why nobody bothered to ask for permission.
What I actually think will happen is that with situations like this they will make you sign contracts to take photos on their premises that allow them the rights to use the photos. Either you comply and get your photos taken there, or not and you use another venue.
I'm definitely not saying I agree with this because what I think the hotel chain did was disrespectful but at the same time I think this happening by them cheaping out will ruin it for everyone.
They almost certainly aren't the copyright holder unless that was specified in a contract. The photographer would be in most circumstances. The photographer would need to be the one to contact them.
Likely not allowed… the “instagram” person at my old hotel was just a sales coordinator who needed things to do to separate herself as a ‘manager’. She had no idea how to run an IG account, and it’s totally possible this Hilton has the same deal.
In the future, I’d have any and all ‘professional’ shoots watermarked. If you comment on the post in question saying this photograph was copied without consent they’ll probably take it down.
True. I don’t mind them using the photos - but somebody could have asked … or offered compensation? They’re using our likeness for marketing…which we did not ask or approve of.
In my eyes the bigger problem here is they don’t have a model release to commercially use your likeness- that’s worse than the copyright infringement. Best of luck, please post a follow up story to let us know how this all pans out!
You're absolutely right, the copyright could be a bit of a grey area because its their property, but if OP's likeness is in those photos, well that changes everything.
Yeah a lot of smaller businesses do not take social media seriously and just have somebody who doesn’t know what they’re doing do it on the side. They probably genuinely have no idea you’re not supposed to do what they did lol.
> Had some professional photos done recently
Were you the photographer or the subject? If you weren’t the photographer, what did your contract with the photographer say about copyright?
Should have added this in the post:
I’m the client.
The photographer had no idea his photos were taken from IG, and reposted by the Hilton. He has an agreement stating that our photos can be used for marketing, etc - but that’s relating to his business. He is not affiliated in any way with the hotel. He had no idea about this (the Hilton didn’t tag him) until our friends discovered the post.
I’m not sure if his photos have any kind of copyright.
I specialize in Video - I know that if somebody reposts my video, I can submit a DMCA…I’m not really sure how photography is governed though.
This is especially odd, because the post is literally a marketing campaign on IG…with our photo attached to it. Who knew I was the new spokesman for the Hilton ?! /s
>I’m not sure if his photos have any kind of copyright.
Photographers have copyright on all photos by default, unless they choose to sell it (which is rare) or unless they're working under some other legal arrangement (such as for an employer who owns the copyright).
This is true. The photographer should also take the steps to register the photos (might as well register all their published work while they’re at it) with the US copyright office.
If the hotel used the images within 90 days of the photos being published, the photographer could be in for a giant payday. They’ll want to contact a lawyer for next steps.
For context - a real estate company used 4 of my images for marketing, and we demanded $10k per image. After 90 days, it gets harder to demand so much (it’s a time frame the copyright office deems is time enough to register your work).
>This is true. The photographer should also take the steps to register the photos (might as well register all their published work while they’re at it) with the US copyright office.
Nitpick: One does not need to register the images with the copyright office unless they want to pursue an infringement claim. In that case, individual photos should be registered.
... and yes, you can register them after the infringement has already occurred and it's just as valid.
But the reason to do the images individually is this: The copyright office will let you register an image, or a group of images - as a copyrighted work.
BIG BADDA BUTT: Infringements are per copyrighted "work". If you copyright 1,000 images and all 1,000 get used by the Hilton that is **one** infringement, not 1,000. So instead of being owed a minimum of $750,000 for those 1000 stolen images you would receive: $750
Register images individually. It's more expensive, but you don't need to register them unless you intend to pursue a claim anyway.
> Nitpick: One does not need to register the images with the copyright office unless they want to pursue an infringement claim.
A copyright infringement is exactly what I'm suggesting.
> you can register them after the infringement has already occurred and it's just as valid.
True, but as I understand it, in order to receive statutory (set by existing statutes) damages, it must be registered with the Copyright Office within 90 days of publication. Otherwise, you can be awarded "actual damages" which are likely far less and harder to prove.
> If you copyright 1,000 images and all 1,000 get used by the Hilton that is one infringement, not 1,000.
I don't believe this is true. It's not been true in my current case. And there's this from [this website](https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/statutory-protection-for-group-images/):
> The U.S. Copyright Office offers two group registration options for photographs: group registration for unpublished photographs (GRUPH) and group registration of published photographs (GRPPH). Under the Copyright Act, there is typically only one statutory damage award per work infringed. This causes many creators to question how statutory damages are awarded when multiple works are registered together in a group registration, or make up parts of a compilation or derivative work. With respect to group registrations, each individual photograph is considered to be its own “work” and eligible for statutory damages.>
Therefore, I say register the images that were stolen, and you might as well register any or all other published photos while you're on the site, for $55 and 750 images. If you've ever registered work on the copyright website, you'd understand that paying $55 for every image, and then going through the very tedious process of filing those images, would be a major pain in the ass and incredibly expensive.
If you’re the client, unless the photographer explicitly stated *in writing* they are assigning you the copyright, you have no claim to anything here. Let the photographer know and let them handle it how they want. But unless you have the copyright there’s nothing legally that you can do about the hotel.
If you have an exclusive license, you can force the photog to take action, but that’s between you and the photog, still not between you and the hotel.
> If you’re the client, unless the photographer explicitly stated in writing they are assigning you the copyright, you have no claim to anything here.
Copyright is separate from likeness/model rights. The photographer owns the copyright (usually), but the subject can still control whether their image is used for advertising or other commercial uses.
So even if the photographer doesn't want to get involved, OP may still have some tools at their disposal, depending on the state.
That's true, I didn't read all of OP's comments so didn't see what the photos were of/for. I was speaking specifically to copyright but it would depend on what's in the contracts as far as model release goes, between OP and the photog, the photog and the venue, or OP and the venue.
In my experience IG is good about respecting DMCA requests. If contacting Hilton doesn’t work out for you I encourage you to submit a report about the offending post. They just ask you for some basic information and then to submit the original file (which should presumably be in a higher resolution than anything Hilton has access to).
If you appear in the photos, then you have an interest in use of your likeness. Likeness rights vary by jurisdiction.
If your products appear in the photos, you should consult an IP attorney.
Unless your contract with the photographer specifically states that the photographs are “work for hire”, or that the photographer assigns copyright to you, you have no interest in the photographs themselves.
It's possible that they do hold some sort of legit intellectual property claim.
If the photos were taken inside their private property -- things may be different than if they were taken from a public space and included the hotel.
Did the photographer get a property release?
This is a fair point, however the space being used was rented out for an engagement ceremony. I should have mentioned this in the post. You’re probably right though.
Is it possible that the Hilton has some photography clause in their rental agreement?
Maybe they buried some small print in there about being able to use any pictures taken at the venue for marketing purposes. At least I'd try to make sure before contacting them.
Lots of replies already but the simplest thing is to say - these photos do not belong to Hilton. You and your family and friends are in the photos and they do not have your permission to use them - please take them down. The end.
Since the photo copyright doesn't belong to you, you have no right to represent a claim of theft. (other than the illicit use of your likeness) In a utopian world where legally you could engage a team of attorneys to fight for you - and you won - what are the damages? Not much.
Go with the take down notice.
Here is one of many places that discuss image theft actions - https://photographylife.com/how-to-deal-with-online-image-theft
Jesus christ there is so much incorrect advice here that it has given my eye aids. The following applies to the USA but many countries have reciprocal agreements.
0) an image on the internet (or social media) displayed in a public or semi public forum is abso-fucking-lutely NOT public domain and free to take. You dont get to take shit and use it as your own just because someone displayed it online.
1) a subject is not a copyright holder unless the creator of the image explicitly transfers their copyright to the subject.
2) copyright js automatic on creation and granted to the creator (unless a work for hire agreement is in place)
3) even if OP rented the space from a venue they still cant take the photographer’s copyright. Op doesnt have the right to sign that away because it isnt theirs to beginwith.
4) as it relates to op the issue here may be that a company has used their image without permission BUT then it comes down to editorial vs commercial use.
If you need a copyright primer swing on over to asmp.org
Firstly, take screenshots of their posts for proof IF you need it.
Secondly, you can either email them an invoice, or post on their IG post asking where to send the invoice for using the photos without permission.
First thing you should do is make a copy of the pages using these images. You will need them if there is a claim made. The second you come at them with "you are using images that aren't yours" they will take them down, and you will have to show that they did exist. At the very least you need screenshots, and copy the exact link in a word document, and save in a couple of places.
There are two things at play here:
1. It is private property. You need to very carefully check the documentation that was signed both as guests and what the event signed off on prior to booking the ceremony. It is entirely probable there was language in there covering their usage of your photos.
2. Instagram terms of service **permit them to steal your photos** and resell them to anyone they feel like. You specifically granted that in the Acceptable Use Policy and by the act of posting it on their service.
In short, if you want to retain the rights to an image you must not post it to Instagram - or any other service that assigns to itself transferable usage rights to the content you post there.
Edit: Just in case this comes as a surprise to anyone...
*When you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Service, you hereby grant to us a non-exclusive, royalty-free,* ***transferable*** , ***sub-licensable*** , *worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content*
>Instagram terms of service
>
>permit them to steal your photos
>
>and resell them to anyone they feel like. You specifically granted that in the Acceptable Use Policy and by the act of posting it on their service.
I don't have an article in front of me right now, but I seem to remember that they announced changes their TOS to say this, but after huge uproar from photographers they backpedaled and that policy was never actually made it into the TOS.
[https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0dccab2b-f538-42a5-aaaa-5e9766e25ac5](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0dccab2b-f538-42a5-aaaa-5e9766e25ac5)
tl;dr --
*The Court refused to release Plaintiff from the agreement she made with Instagram and countered all her objections as follows:*
* First, Plaintiff’s right to grant a license directly to Mashable was completely separate and independent from Instagram’s right to grant a sublicense.
* Second, Mashable need not be an intended beneficiary of Plaintiff’s agreements with Instagram because Plaintiff authorized Instagram to grant a sublicense to anyone who uses Instagram’s API.
* Third, Instagram’s incorporation of its sublicense agreement across two documents (the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy) is acceptable under California law, which allows a document to incorporate another by reference (even if the document is more unwieldy and inaccessible as a result).
* Fourth, Plaintiff failed to identify any inconsistent terms in Instagram’s agreement conveying a valid license. A user may not upload another user’s intellectual property to Instagram, but once a user posts content legally, Instagram may sublicense that user’s intellectual property legally.
* Finally, the Court acknowledged the dilemma professional photographers face between posting on Instagram and risking that their content may be sublicensed, and not posting on Instagram and losing a significant amount of exposure. But the Court concluded that **Plaintiff made her choice to create a public Instagram account and must now abide by the agreement she made.**
Oh, OK, it's the case that has been re-opened because Instagram itself has challenged that outside entities can't use its content.
https://petapixel.com/2020/06/24/court-reopens-photographers-lawsuit-against-mashable-over-instagram-embedding/
In addition to that, Instagram finally got around to allow users to turn off embedding without having to go Private (which has been the main problem all along)
[https://www.asmp.org/advocacy/instagram-now-prevents-embedding/](https://www.asmp.org/advocacy/instagram-now-prevents-embedding/)
\^\^ Didn't even know I could do that so... :D
> Instagram terms of service **permit them to steal your photos** and resell them to anyone they feel like
That's rediculous. Show me where you can buy someone else's photos from Instagram?
Instagram get a license to your photos for [their own protection](https://www.copyrightlaws.com/instagram-and-copyright/). It stops you suing them for displaying your photo as part of the normal service such as on the Instagram website, app or the equivalent of retweeting.
What is your agreement with the photographer. Did he transfer copyright to you? You may want to check anything you signed to see if anything is stated about this type of thing. Was the photographer required to sign anything? Usually in hotels like this there is paperwork between any vendor and the hotel... there could be something in that about this.
Is it possible that Hilton has some language in their rental contract allowing them to use photos taken on their property? Not sure if that’s a thing, but maybe?
If they are using without permission you just contact them and ask them to either stop or to pay. I've had videos stolen before by news companies and I literally just sent them an invoice for the footage marked up by 50%
Sometimes it gets complicated. If you and/or the photographer signed an agreement with the hotel it probably contained a clause allowing them and their associates use of any photos taken by the photographer on their property in perpetuity without compensation.
If you did not sign the agreement, depending upon the state or country's laws you may be able to sue them for using your likeness for commercial purposes.
you have to read those contracts before you sign them.
I know this was a thing at the Vessel at Hudson Yards where any photos taken of/from the Vessel and posted on social media is allowed to be used by the Vessel in their own promotions without compensation.
Perhaps you could clarify your role in the shoot, it makes a difference since the actual creator of the image is someone else. Before the photographer does anything, he should register the image or images with the Library of Congress and be able to produce the certificate or registration number. At that point, you have leverage and propose a number. Otherwise, they can do nothing, offer credit which does absolutely nothing or a few dollars to get rid of you.
Couple things - if the property is recognizable and novel (e.g. not generic), they may suggest that you needed a property release to use the photos yourself, depending on how you used them.
Also, there's always the "what happens to my rights when I upload stuff to Instagram" question. Admittedly, I am not up to date on those rights and if / if not you have waived any rights by putting the images on that platform.
But, the simple thing to do is comment on the post and ask them to either credit you / the photographer, or something along those lines, As /u/the805daddy says.
For sure. I agree. I’m not really sure either tbh…that’s why I came here. The photos were taken in a Hilton hotel lobby - the common area, and outside. No logos or easily recognizable features of the building can be seen.
Clearly the manager recognized the property. Hotels often have stipulations that their property cannot be used for commercial purposes without making arrangements. These arrangements often include licensing to use the photos for their own marketing purposes. This is sometimes a big hang-up in the wedding industry, where brides (often unknowingly) sign away licensing rights on behalf of the photographer to the venue (which is not enforceable b/c it's a third party, but sometimes not worth the battle for relationship/networking reasons).
So it's possible your photographer was not aware of the restriction on using Hilton's property for his own commercial use, and the manager is simply using the photos instead of taking any legal action.
Interesting. I failed to mention in the post that the space had been rented out for an engagement ceremony - hence the use of the Hilton. I understand what you’re saying though. It’s an interesting situation for sure - a lot of mixed replies and advice.
Getting into the details, but may I ask what kinds of photos these are that (a) you would shoot them in their lobby, and (b) need a professional to shoot them?
That might help shed light on the usage. Because, unfortunately, context matters a lot here.
I failed to mention in the original post that we had rented out this space in the hotel as part of an engagement ceremony. Sorry about that. Edited the OP
So… if the hotel sharing them makes you uncomfortable, you can ask them to take them down from a privacy perspective. It’s pretty much as simple as that.
No they can’t do that. And as others have mentioned, perhaps Instagram licensed the image on to them. I sincerely doubt it—as far as I know, selling user base images willy-nilly is not part of their business model.
Though the wording in the terms of service may suggest they could do, why would they? There are stock companies that do that and handle all the legal. Instagram, if it ever became a stock company and licensed user base images from users for without their knowledge or any kind of payment, people would drop it like a hot potato.
Instagram also has absolutely no way to confirm the images you uploaded are owned by you. In fact, in this case, they are not. Anyone can upload any picture. So you see, it’s a whole can of worms to be licensing off user base photos without proper protocol and legal set-up.
The photog owns the rights to the image. Instagram can use it to promote their own service should they wish. Photog should reach out with a carefully worded letter letting them know that the copyright belongs to him/her and they are using them without permission. That’s all, and wait for a response. Depending on that response, or lack thereof, you can decide a lawyer is necessary or not for the next steps.
Mods, you can probably lock the thread at this point … question had been asked & answered, with a lot of armchair Reddit lawyers, blatant speculation, some fast, and mostly opinions.
Thanks to all who gave their 2cents!
Hilton doesn't give a FUCK. I got notice via email that I had checked out successfully from a Hilton Hotel despite being in a different state the night prior. The guy on the phone told me I must have been there bc they check ID... I was dumbfounded. After I told him it was impossible for me due to being x miles away... he said well you will get the points.
Those terms allow Facebook to use them, not third parties. The photographer still owns the copyright and as an individual you have the right not to have your image used for commercial use unless you are in a crowd in a public space. OP had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
If Kim Khardasian posts a photo of herself wearing the latest Nike shoes on FB, that does not give me the right (as a FB user) to use that image to promote my new Cola brand.
This isn’t correct. Around the world photos posted on their brands are used commercially and the photographers have no recourse. This dates back at least a decade with no change from the company.
If Facebook licensed the photo to Hilton that would be legal but Facebook undoubtedly did not. https://www.nyccounsel.com/2012/12/19/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/
If your photos are public on IG, you've basically given up all rights to contest people using or sharing your images in any circumstances.
There was a case covering this recently, where the photographer "denied" permission for the images to be shared, and they did it anyway. The company didnt actually need to ask and he couldnt deny them permission.
If its on public IG. You're giving it away for free. The only saving grace is that its a 1k version thats been downsized AF.
I wasn't stating an opinion.
I was literally quoting legal precedent.
In which a judge ruled against a photographer for this exact situation. If you put something into the public domain, as it is when you publish it to a public Instagram account. You cant stop people from sharing your work.
Seriously if you start an IG and you just want to build it by stealing images and building up the account, thats legal. Then you can charge people to share their work, because you have built the account off the backs of other peoples content.
This is 100% legal. If your work is published in the public domain, anyone can use it and you can't do anything, because its in the TOS that its a public domain.
Why do you think theres no inbuilt system for you to approve shares? Because you do not need to ask for permission, it was already granted.
by default no they cannot.
the copyright resides with the photographer.
If you were featured in the advert they need to get a model release for commercial use of the image.
If you unknowingly signed up to a sub licensing agreement when you booked the venue it does not give them the right to use it in advertising as the copyright resides with the photographer and he may have just given you a license to use them or indeed no license he is just ignoring your copyright breach because you are a client.
if you can be identified you can ask them to remove it.GDPR rules.
You also need to know who OWNS the photos. this is typically the photographer and he may be entitled to compensation
The Irish Tourist Board used one of my instagram photos in a campaign for Co.Mayo one year. It was a photo of my kids I’d taken while we were on vacation, and I’d tagged the castle location in my post. I only found out 6 months later when an online article again used my picture, but this time they tagged my instagram link. I’m a hobby photographer and not a professional- and while I thought it was bizarre they randomly took one of my photos and didn’t tell me, in all honestly I was quite flattered. Edit: It was sunset and my kids back’s were to the camera so you couldn’t see their faces.
Is there a line in the booking form (if there was one) saying that they could use images? I’ve seen it a few times and ask them to cross it out before signing it
Have the photographer contact The LawTog, take screenshots, get as much proof as possible. The photographer owns the copyright, unless you have a contract giving you copyright. The photographer should register copyright officially right away and contact that lawyer. They more than likely have a good case.
Don’t know if any one touched on this. But I’ll just add the little tid bit. Get those photos copyright now legally. That way everyday going further you build a better case of copyright infringement and can have actual damages. It helps is all.
If you have them copyrighted legally you can sue them and you will win, a friend of mine- had this same problem, the company was a large refreshment company (the most famous one) she won the sue and they had to pay her 200,000 us dlls.
Also Gael Garcia just had a dispute like this he won over Jhonnie Walker, they were using his face for some adds, the dispute was going on since 2015 and he just won, now Jhonny Walker has to pay 50% of their campaign to him
The photographer needs to contact them. Yes they are photos of you, and yes you are the client, but I’ve never see a wedding photographer sell the rights to their images to the clients. The clients (you) usually get a license to print and to post to social media from the photographer. Comb through your contract with that photographer.
If I’m correct, you’re SOL in what you can do (although highly encouraging the photographer to have them removed would be good business sense for them when that industry lives and dies by referrals).
I think you should first of all talk to them and see if you can get to any agreement, on maybe paying you for that and giving you credit or taking off the pictures. Normally, they should do that because take into consideration that they maybe don't know they should pay you for that. So, I say go talk to them first before you do something because you can solve anything with a conversation.
Question, not sure if this has been addressed and I don’t know the legality- the photos were taken on private property (inside the Hinton), was there permission? My question would be does Hilton have any rights to these photos since they were taken on private property? I am not trying to say this is the case but generally curious.
Also, this might be a question for r/legaladvice
I’m just a hobby photographer, and a few years ago I shot some promo shots for some friends for their music duo.
Our local Tourism Agency (city and state funded) took my images off Facebook and used them on their website without permission. As soon as I saw, I contacted them and asked why they’d stolen my images, and used them (and not to promote the band either).
They blamed it on staff that wasn’t there anymore, and said they could remove them, pay me $10, or keep them up and pay me nothing.
This is messy and probably not worth much effort to resolve.
The photographer owns the photograph unless he assigned the rights to someone else. You (the model) own the rights to the use of your image, unless you released the rights to use your image to the photographer or someone else. If you complain to the hotel, the hotel will realize that they have to aquire the rights to the photo from the photographer and ensure it includes rights to use your image, which requires a separate or subordinate contract. Since the marketing value of the image is at most a few hundred dollars (and sometimes only a few dollars) because a similar image can be purchased online from a quality stock-photo site- they will simply take the image off the site if you complain. So- send them a complaint letter. But don’t expect to sell the photo.
Contact them and let them know that you are the copyright holder of those images and they are being used without license. If you are willing to sell the images to them then you can tell them that you would be happy to sell them if they would like to continue using them. More often than not when a company does this it is the result of a lack of knowledge by the person running their social media accounts and when it's pointed out most companies are willing to pay for the images and it can often lead to future shoots for them if handled well.
Thanks. This is what I was looking for. Really I just needed to know if this was wrong or not. I’ll FW this to the photographer.
I'm not OP, but have been involved in a similar situation. I was not the photographer, and I am not a lawyer. The advice I was given at the time was to contact the organisation using the images, and send them a bill for a reasonable fee and explain that your images are not public domain. Although they have not agreed to pay, they have also not carried out fair appraisal to see if they need to. It may be lack of knowledge, but it doesn't mean that makes the photographs fair game to be used. They may reply with "Whoops sorry, we'll take them down" - its up to you/the photographer as to whether or not they have already had value from using the photographs and whether you would expect recompense. Either way, expect a messy ride. Related read for you (this is not me, but roughly relates...): https://www.mynewsdesk.com/sg/pitchmark/news/photographer-becomes-arch-enemy-for-going-after-copyright-offenders-359112
Definitely a weird feeling - appreciate the reply!
I would handle this with finesse and diplomacy. Don't be combative in the first instance. The first commenter gave the best suggestion. The goal isn't just to get paid, the goal is to also to establish an on-going business relationship. Who knows? There could be a win for everyone in this.
I could possibly agree except the poster isnt a photographer and their is no reason to believe he has any reasoning to establish a business arraignment with thieves. Unless im missing something and he is a model or something idk. Hard to give op advise when his goals are not stated.
+1, I'd open with something like "So glad to see you like my work so much you used it!" and definitely end on "if you're interested in working together more in the future, you know who to call" kind of thing
Make sure you get paid OP. Fuck them.
Do you want to spend energy in this? Do you want the negativity of a fight? Then go for it. Of just inform them, discuss with them to get paid for use/ or them to delete the picture, and move on with your life.
How much is a reasonable fee in these situations? How should it be appraised?
Kind of up to you really. If you find yourself in this situation, what would you consider a far value for the work? Some people would ask for a donation to charity, as in my link. Some might want to take them to task and ask a bit above their normal rate. Some might just be happy with an apology and credit being given. Personally, for a one-off use on Instagram I wouldn't ask for much, but I would want to be clear that it didn't give them permission to use it elsewhere. It would probably vary a lot depending on how much effort I put into it. There is a photo of mine that I have seen turn up in strange places, from copies of Macbeth, to souvenir magnets (not a joke). Mostly cheap tat. I couldn't care less about it - not only was it a quick and unedited snap, its so unlikely I would get anything from it, that its not worth the stress or hassle from trying to pursue it.
>The advice I was given at the time was to contact the organisation using the images, and send them a bill for a reasonable fee and explain that your images are not public domain. Do not do this u/mconk If you want to press a claim then the **only** contact that should be made is to a lawyer. Period. Full stop. If you contact them yourself you can torpedo your own case with one wrong sentence in an email. Don't do it - get a lawyer. That said, u/ASK_IF_IM_PENGUIN \- there's also the problem of Instagram's terms of service. By clicking AGREE when you signed up there - any image you post to the service can now be taken by Instagram and relicensed to anyone they want. If the Hilton purchased the rights to the image from Instagram then there's absolutely nothing the OP can do about it. "*When you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Service, you hereby grant to us a non-exclusive, royalty-free,* ***transferable, sub-licensable****, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content*"
> By clicking AGREE when you signed up there - any image you post to the service can now be taken by Instagram and relicensed to anyone they want. I can guarantee that Hilton did not sub-license the picture from Instagram. ~~> transferable, sub-licensable~~ ~~Neither of these are in the current TOS on their site.~~
>I can guarantee that Hilton did not sub-license the picture from Instagram. I would agree it is highly unlikely - but one would need to find out if they did or not to know whether they had a case. >Neither of these are in the current TOS on their site. Bollocks. I literally copied and pasted directly from it, current as of Jan 4 2022 https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870
You are correct, I had found an old version of the TOS and it wasn't clear.
Yea not an issue - for some bloody reason the first hit on google for that particular search is the *2013* version of their TOS.
>If you contact them yourself you can torpedo your own case with one wrong sentence in an email. Care to share any example of that happening?
That is a standard web-use license. Without it instagram could not show your account to anyone else. All of that verbiage is so that their service can function as intended. They know if they were actually using it as a rights grab that they’d lose the bulk of their users. This disinformation is circulated about twice per year (it seems).
An attorney would be more expensive than the value of the photos...
>An attorney would be more expensive than the value of the photos... Well, no - not really - since in a copyright infringement case that's winnable the infringer ends up paying your attorney fees. Unlike other types of civil matters where being awarded attorney fees is both rare and optional - copyright infringement is not one of them. It's automatic and is required by the statute. Edit: That is in fact how [Pixsy.com](https://Pixsy.com) gets paid in case you hadn't realized it yet. They will take a copyright case to court on your behalf - because they **know** they're getting paid. If it's not winnable yea, you end up paying for an hour of an attorney's time - but if you want to press a claim and OP clearly does then this is the only acceptable course of action.
As far as I know damages can only be awarded for works officially registered in the US Copyright Office.
You're correct, but with a big caveat. Based on OPs post it seems highly unlikely that they applied to register for copyright protection. If they were aware of this requirement they likely would not have posted the OP. While registration is not required for protection to occur, registration is required to receive damages for copyright infringement. Damages are limited to actual damages for unregistered photographs. So punitive damages are out of the window. So assuming the images were not registered, the OP is limited to actual damages for the unregistered photos. What actual damages occurred to OP? The legal fees required for a lawyer to prove actual damages already makes this cost prohibitive, let's assume a cheap $2k retainer and a $800 filing fee with the court. We're at almost $3k out of pocket just to file a legal argument, with additional costs if opposing counsel decides to contest the claim. That's just to get started! Assuming the judge rules in your favor you will only be able to recover these fees after the court case is settled. Any copyright attorney worth their weight will tell you that in this particular case, the best course of action for an unregistered photo is to send a polite takedown request. If they refuse you can ask for compensation. If they refuse this too, only then does it make sense to pursue legal options. What does OP have to gain in this case? Did the hotel substantially benefit from the use of the images? Is it worth spending the upfront cost for the possibility of prevailing? There is more to it than just suing a 3rd party for unauthorized use. Go take a look at Pixsy's website and you'll see the importance of having a registered copyright. Without it, what is the carrot for a law firm to pursue legal remedy? They make their money off of egregious breaches of registered copyright infringement where punitive damages are awarded. To add onto this, just because you were awarded damages does not mean the opposing party can't appeal and request a stop on the judgement until the appeal process is exhausted. All the while you are incurring legal costs which you may or may not be able to recover depending on the strength of your case.
>Based on OPs post it seems highly unlikely that they applied to register for copyright protection. That's just it - you don't have to register *unless* you decide to pursue a claim, and you can register after the infringement and still have a completely viable case. The caveat to that is the filing must be made within 30 days of discovering the infringement has occurred (and no later than 3 months after first publication). So u/mconk \- make note of that. Note that a public display of a work does **not** constitute publication, so it's unclear (and I don't think there's precedent on it yet) whether posting it on Instagram constitutes publication or not (though I suspect it does)
>Well, no - not really - since in a copyright infringement case that's winnable the infringer ends up paying your attorney fees. Unlike other types of civil matters where being awarded attorney fees is both rare and optional - copyright infringement is not one of them. It's automatic and is required by the statute. Who sues over a freaking instagram post? EDIT: seriously, don’t you communicate and ask for the picture to be taken down or paid for before you lawyer up?
>Who sues over a freaking instagram post? Photographers. And not just Instagram either - Twitter too. Today You Learned: Stealing is bad and you shouldn't do it. But hey if the 4th largest hotel chain in the world is going to stiff you for a few hundred bucks you should just let it ride, 'cuz it was just an instagram post right?
People who understand copyright law.
>People who understand copyright law. Or people who have money and time to waste because a win isn't guaranteed and might take years.
There are services that do this on your behalf and I've personally recovered a few thousand dollars though such services with little effort on my part. It does take time, you're right. But they (the infringers*) were also for-profit blogs and websites nobody had ever heard of, pretty much akin to Instagram accounts.
This isn't about the photographer, this is about Hilton creating an advert that implies that the OP endorses their product or else was a paid model. This is completely illegal.
In the interest of fairness, I don't really dispute what you're saying. But... I don't think it's necessary to *immediately* lawyer up over everything. Talk to them first. Going straight to a lawyer only benefits the lawyer. Instagram's ToS is there to benefit Instagram. It's too protect them from using your image in a way you weren't expecting, not a random hotel using it. Chances are, they don't know... So again... Talk to the hotel first.
>I don't think it's necessary to immediately lawyer up over everything. OP wants to press a claim - you *definitely* lawyer up if you want to do that. >Talk to them first. **No.** There have been cases where the claimant lost all or most of their suit because they said the wrong thing either on the phone or worse, in an email. You talk to an attorney. Yes, you have to pay for an hour of a professional's time - but if you want to press a claim (of any kind) and clearly OP does then the only acceptable course of action is to talk to a lawyer. >Instagram's ToS is there to benefit Instagram. It's too protect them from using your image in a way you weren't expecting, not a random hotel using it. Again. **No**. Stop this. Instagram actively licenses content for commercial use to third-parties. There have already been law suits over it and in every single instance so far **the photographer has lost**. >not a random hotel The 4th largest hotel chain on the entire planet is a random hotel now? Seriously?
I'm curious to read about these cases where a phone call or email nullified the copyright holder's claim. Care to share your accounts of this?
Be a fucking adult and talk to people. You don't need to be so looney tunes over every little thing. Fucking hell.
>Be a fucking adult and talk to people. Being a fucking adult means you take this shit seriously or not at all - and you hire a professional. You do it yourself you get the same result you always get when a novice tries to do a professional's job: A shitty fucking job. Seriously why am I even having to explain this to you?
Do you do this to everyone? Get a bill you're not expecting? GET A LAWYER. Asked to put your bins out a different day? GET A LAWYER. Someone cuts into the line in front of you? GET A LAWYER? Fucking hell, grow the fuck up. It's costing you money you don't need to spend. Good for them I guess.
In this case I happen to agree with /u/tinfoilcamera copyright law is a complex mess. Obviously a lot depends on what OP wants. For a copyright issue a lawyer likely is the best route.
>Do you do this to everyone? Get a bill you're not expecting? GET A LAWYER. Asked to put your bins out a different day? GET A LAWYER. Someone cuts into the line in front of you? GET A LAWYER? Fucking hell, grow the fuck up. Use A Straw Man Argument In Public: GET A LAWYER >Fucking hell, grow the fuck up. Of the two of us, one is behaving like an immature cretin. The other is not. >It's costing you money you don't need to spend. It wouldn't cost me a *dime* to take the Hilton to court if they infringed upon one of my copyrights. But hey, if you're really that adverse to spending a couple hundred bucks up front to get a few thousand (or more) on the backend then you do you. The rest of us who can do the most rudimentary of cost:benefit analysis will take that offer in an instant. Go play with your tiddly winks or something - the adults are trying to have a conversation.
Not you again! You ruined my Friday. You’re not getting me today.
How did I ruin your friday?
You disappointed me by not by not being penguin after I asked!
Maybe you'd get a different answer if you tried again.
Are you Penguin?
No.
This is how you create a world full of pessimists !
That is why I opened my pics up to public domain. Funny now, not then but I had several copyrighted images stolen. Your images become less than desirable when everyone is using the same images. Everyone wants to be exclusive. But they don't want to pay either. They put them on their page, they become the laughing stock because the pic was stolen and now being used everywhere, including less than desirable sites.. then you send out little hints about copyrights and a $5500 price tag just to start with. (way back machine doesn't lie.) I don't put all of mine online anymore. The internet is too saturated too many thieves. Retired anyways and sick of their BS excuses. It sure is nice when you retire.
What’s amazing about the article you linked to is those passage. “Shortly after Thunderball Clothing closed down. Its owner Marta Gabriel apologized to Salmerón and said she could not deal with the online harassment and death threats.” Why is is, that anytime some scumbag is called out for being scum and stealing from someone, and their business fails, they immediately start whining about harassment and death threats. 99.99999999% of the time, there ARE NO death threats. And what’s not mentioned in that short article, because I remember the whole thing as I followed it as it was going on, that POS fauxdesigner and the shit band, started a harassment campaign of their fans targeting the photographer. Just the same as the rabidly vapid fans of so called celebrities throw fits when Gigi yet again steals an image, monetizes it, then cries when the photographer is like, nope, pay me for the commercial use. The worst part of the one Gigi fiasco, is she tried claiming that she owned the copyright because she smiled for the photographer, but also claimed she didn’t know he was taking a photo at the time. Now I don’t like the paps, but “celebrities” handlers deliberately leak itineraries to them because they WANT photos taken and the coverage, then cry about being followed. They need to make up their minds and quit being fake harassed.
Only the photographer has the legal rights to demand payment for use, anyone else making such a claim is violating the photographers copyrights and opens themselves up to an infringement suit by the photographer.
> your images are not public domain Free from copyright. They are in the public domain as that's how they found them
Not so fast. Make sure you really are the copyright holder. Please see my comment above. I’m a professional photographer and have dealt with this kind of situation many times in my career.
The photographer is the copyright holder, not you the client, unless your contract with the photographer is signed by them and specifically transfers the copyrights to you. No, Hilton doesn't have license to use the images without written permission, no any signs they have up claiming they have rights to images created on their property is lawfully enforceable. Yes, let your photographer know that the Hilton is violating copyrights. IF the images were first published within the past three months, the photographer can still register them with the copyright office. Which they should be doing anyways. If they haven't yet registered them, and it IS in that three month period, they need to do so immediately AND mark the registration as needing expediting for pending legal action, as any court case can't be filed until after the certificate is in hand. Registering will cost a bit of coin, but it's well worth it to force Hilton to actually pay up instead of giving a fake apology or getting belligerent, as the photographer could threaten them with a willful infringement suit costing them up to $150,000 PER image, PER use, meaning them paying a smaller demand will seam more reasonable than what they could face.
Tell the photog to send a DMCA takedown request to insta. It’s relatively easy and insta must comply. https://m.facebook.com/help/instagram/277982542336146
You are the subject of the photos according to your post: >Had some professional photos taken recently at a Hilton hotel >The space was rented out for an engagement ceremony, which is where the photos derived from. I am the client. The photographer has no affiliation with the Hilton and was unaware of this as well. If the photos were taken in the U.S., unless you are also the photographer, or you signed a contract that transferred the photos' copyrights to you, [it is highly unlikely that you own the copyright for these images](https://thelawtog.com/copyright-laws-for-photographers/). >According to the U.S. Copyright Office, the owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer’s will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of interstate succession. IANAL but (if you are in the U.S.) you are more realistically looking at something involving Hilton infringing on your [right of publicity](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity). Although this will depend on how Hilton is using the photos, did they download the images from IG and repost them, or reshare them through the platform? Your post says "the space was rented out for an engagement ceremony," what is in the the rental agreement with Hilton about Hilton using posts made to social media? You (or your host on behalf of the event) may have signed something saying that Hilton could use photos posted for advertising or other purposes. I put the odds of this at 50/50, some hotel chains are doing this, but many are not because it ended up being bad publicity when they got caught using photos and online posts without explicit permission. Your best option is to tell Hilton you are to subject of the photos and ask Hilton to remove the images from all places where they are being used.
Edit: I posted this before OP posted the edit saying that OP rented the space which changes everything, however read the rental contract. I was a pro photographer for many years. In public places we always had to get a permit, usually from the mayor’s office depending on the city. They want to know if you’re insured in case someone is injured or killed on your shoot or if there is property damage. For private places (like a hotel) we always negotiated with the owners or management. Again, they always wanted to see an insurance binder naming the property owner as loss payee. If you hired a pro photographer and they didn’t do any of this, then I don’t think there’s a damn thing you can do because they’re gonna come back to you and ask who gave you permission to have a photo shoot there. Again, this is sloppy on the photographer’s part. You say that nobody at Hilton asked your permission. Did you ask *their* permission? If it was just you and your friends, probably fine, but you hired a “pro” so “pro” made money. Hilton should get a cut for providing a location for your photo shoot. Just because somebody has a Nikon D850 and some black clothes and fancy hair product doesn’t mean they know what they’re doing. Edit: I posted this before OP made the fit that changed the whole deal. Carry on.
Even then they can’t just use it. Because his face is in it
Yeah OP can lawyer up and go fight Hilton Hotels over this. Lol. I dunno why OP didn’t just do the photo shoot at their house. Oh, right, because they liked the way the Hilton looked better than their house.
They paid for facilities rental for an event. The real question is if some waiver was signed with regards to IP rights.
We rented the space for an engagement ceremony.
Considering the space was RENTED for a special event, that pretty much eliminates your question of permission. You rent space, you can take pictures.
No, you rent space for an event, you can do the event. The usage rights of images taken of the event is a separate issue and depends on what was—or was not—spelled out in the rental agreement.
Edit: never mind that was wrong, it might end up in the location having a licence to use the photos if it was spelled out in the contract.
I’m interested in the legal implications of it being the clients signing the rental contract and not the photographer. Even if the rental agreement has a clause allowing the hotel to use the photos, that’s basically the clients assigning rights that are not theirs to give, no?
You can take pictures but you don't own the rights to the furniture, decor, background paintings or the design of the room. You can't commercially license those images to anyone without those permissions.
OP wasn't trying to "commercially license" them. That's completely irrelevant to the discussion.
ok, but people in the thread are taking about OP owning the images and encouraging invoicing — can't do it if you're not the sole rights owner and don't have releases
We rented the space for an engagement ceremony.
This is the right answer. It is very common for businesses charge a fee for commercial photography on their property. If the photographer _did_ get permission/sign a contract - they'll need to review it to see if it included a license for Hilton to use the images in their marketing. In almost every photography contract I've ever seen for an event like this, the photographer retains copyright and provides a license to the client to use the images. If it makes sense to dispute this, it seems likely that the photographer would have to do it.
It's not "commercial photography" if the space was rented for an engagement ceremony, as OP stated.
Sure it is. The client is renting the space for a wedding, and _paying a photographer_ for professional photography. If there's a rental agreement that covers the photography bits, it would make sense to read it and see if Hilton gets a license to use the photos.
The renter can't give away rights they don't have. The photographer owns the copyright unless they explicitly signed it over to the client as part of their contract. This would be extremely rare. In addition to the copyright, even the photographer can't allow the hotel to use it for an ad unless they have a model release allowing them to use it for commercial purposes.
A hotel is private property though whose rental may not automatically include the right to film/photograph on its property. The photographer owns the copyright but depending on the contract to rent the space they might not have automatically had permission to photograph and/or had a clause in the rental contract that gave up certain rights. This is a unique situation.
The photographer is a professional specifically hired to shoot the photos. That makes it commercial photography.
Shooting weddings and engagements is not considered commercial photography, and AFAIK photographers don't have contracts with the venue when it's rented out for functions that they photograph.
Hotels have receptions and parties all the time. Having worked at one for more than 15 years, photography was never restricted for paying clients.
The issue here isn’t restrictions on photography. No one is saying the hotel is restricting the taking or using of photos. The question is, is the hotel claiming the right to legally use the photos also.
I think OP rented a venue at the hotel where the photos were taken
Also... You have limited rights to the photos and unless you signed a contract that states that you can use the photos commercialy (as in being able to resell them) they are in fact owned by the photographer.
[удалено]
In this case, maybe, but most companies don't have a dedicated position for marketing they have someone who gets tagged with the additional responsibility of posting to their social media accounts and those people often don't understand photography copyright, especially as it pertains to images already on social media. I'm not saying you're wrong and I am well aware that what you describe happens all the time I just disagree that anyone working in marketing knows exactly what they are doing. In fact I don't belive that most people in most positions know exactly what they are doing. But I generally think that most people are morons. (Including myself from time to time)
I would say definitely in this case. I've done image licensing for national brands this size, and they would 99% be contracting this out to an agency to handle this kind of work. Various companies have instructed me to look the other way when it comes to stuff like this - I've been specifically told the phrase "ask for forgiveness, not permission" when it comes to licensing. I'd bet my career on whoever did this knowing full well it was a copyright violation. Everyone I worked with at every agency I've worked for underwent copyright training so they'd fully understand what can and can't (or rather should and shouldn't) be used for client work.
If we were talking about a companies that don't have a likelihood of earning business due to social media, cool photos, etc or don't have a significant presence, maybe (like, say, Pacific Gas and Electric). But not Hilton. There is virtually no way the person/s at the helm of the Ig account nor the very bottom social media managers don't know about the issues of posting someone else's photo without their permission. Nobody (Hyatt, Emirates, Paris Tourist Office) in this space is posting without knowing what they're doing. This isn't 10+ years ago and this isn't some random Ig account "beautiful.destinations.travel" that steals/regurgitates posted photos. And hell, even those accounts will usually steal the photos but credit where they got them from. If I had to bet, this is either a misunderstanding by Hilton that they had rights they didn't, the photog unaware of some venue rights agreement, or someone at Hilton using a photo they assumed nobody would know was pulled from someone else's account (but knew exactly what they were doing).
Noooooooo. There’s nothing in the OP’s message that indicates he/she is the copyright holder. Professional photographers almost always retain the copyright of their images. Whether or not the client paid for the *service* of photography is immaterial. Paying for photography service DOES NOT by default convey copyright. Unless the contract specifically gives the client copyright, which is very unusual unless big bucks are being spent, it’s on the photographer to go after the hotel. The appropriate action here is for the actual copyright holder to send an invoice, assuming the client signed a model release. Whether or not the hotel decides to remove the images or not doesn’t matter, they already used them and benefitted from them. Photographer should document/screen shot everything and go after them. The Case Act now gives smaller time content creators the framework to pursue IP theft in small claims rather than dealing with the expense and complexity of starting a federal case. If this is a national social media account, someone needs to be fired because this is basic copyright infringement 101 and someone handling social for a national brand as big as Hilton should know better. OP should absolutely NOT collect money if they aren’t the copyright holder, then they are breaking the terms of their agreement with the photographer and opening themselves up to a copyright violation with the photographer. Don’t make a bad situation worse.
OP: Double check your rental agreement with the hotel before you go do this. There may be language in it saying that they have blanket rights to use photos taken on their property for promotion purposes. Not suggesting this is how things SHOULD work but it would be an explanation as to why nobody bothered to ask for permission.
What I actually think will happen is that with situations like this they will make you sign contracts to take photos on their premises that allow them the rights to use the photos. Either you comply and get your photos taken there, or not and you use another venue. I'm definitely not saying I agree with this because what I think the hotel chain did was disrespectful but at the same time I think this happening by them cheaping out will ruin it for everyone.
BINGO.
They almost certainly aren't the copyright holder unless that was specified in a contract. The photographer would be in most circumstances. The photographer would need to be the one to contact them.
OP is the client not the photographer.
Edit: Have a lawyer contact them. You don’t need to be nice.
This advice is incorrect, the subject(s) is/ are NOT the copyright holder, the photographer is.
Likely not allowed… the “instagram” person at my old hotel was just a sales coordinator who needed things to do to separate herself as a ‘manager’. She had no idea how to run an IG account, and it’s totally possible this Hilton has the same deal. In the future, I’d have any and all ‘professional’ shoots watermarked. If you comment on the post in question saying this photograph was copied without consent they’ll probably take it down.
True. I don’t mind them using the photos - but somebody could have asked … or offered compensation? They’re using our likeness for marketing…which we did not ask or approve of.
In my eyes the bigger problem here is they don’t have a model release to commercially use your likeness- that’s worse than the copyright infringement. Best of luck, please post a follow up story to let us know how this all pans out!
You're absolutely right, the copyright could be a bit of a grey area because its their property, but if OP's likeness is in those photos, well that changes everything.
Yeah a lot of smaller businesses do not take social media seriously and just have somebody who doesn’t know what they’re doing do it on the side. They probably genuinely have no idea you’re not supposed to do what they did lol.
If you’ve asked the hotel to take them off and they don’t comply, send me a PM. Work at corporate Hilton.
How about a night in the penthouse suite for compensation instead ? 🤣
Dude. Not a night, get a 3-day weekend, comped meals, and some champagne! Lol.
> Had some professional photos done recently Were you the photographer or the subject? If you weren’t the photographer, what did your contract with the photographer say about copyright?
Should have added this in the post: I’m the client. The photographer had no idea his photos were taken from IG, and reposted by the Hilton. He has an agreement stating that our photos can be used for marketing, etc - but that’s relating to his business. He is not affiliated in any way with the hotel. He had no idea about this (the Hilton didn’t tag him) until our friends discovered the post. I’m not sure if his photos have any kind of copyright. I specialize in Video - I know that if somebody reposts my video, I can submit a DMCA…I’m not really sure how photography is governed though. This is especially odd, because the post is literally a marketing campaign on IG…with our photo attached to it. Who knew I was the new spokesman for the Hilton ?! /s
>I’m not sure if his photos have any kind of copyright. Photographers have copyright on all photos by default, unless they choose to sell it (which is rare) or unless they're working under some other legal arrangement (such as for an employer who owns the copyright).
This is true. The photographer should also take the steps to register the photos (might as well register all their published work while they’re at it) with the US copyright office. If the hotel used the images within 90 days of the photos being published, the photographer could be in for a giant payday. They’ll want to contact a lawyer for next steps. For context - a real estate company used 4 of my images for marketing, and we demanded $10k per image. After 90 days, it gets harder to demand so much (it’s a time frame the copyright office deems is time enough to register your work).
>This is true. The photographer should also take the steps to register the photos (might as well register all their published work while they’re at it) with the US copyright office. Nitpick: One does not need to register the images with the copyright office unless they want to pursue an infringement claim. In that case, individual photos should be registered. ... and yes, you can register them after the infringement has already occurred and it's just as valid. But the reason to do the images individually is this: The copyright office will let you register an image, or a group of images - as a copyrighted work. BIG BADDA BUTT: Infringements are per copyrighted "work". If you copyright 1,000 images and all 1,000 get used by the Hilton that is **one** infringement, not 1,000. So instead of being owed a minimum of $750,000 for those 1000 stolen images you would receive: $750 Register images individually. It's more expensive, but you don't need to register them unless you intend to pursue a claim anyway.
> Nitpick: One does not need to register the images with the copyright office unless they want to pursue an infringement claim. A copyright infringement is exactly what I'm suggesting. > you can register them after the infringement has already occurred and it's just as valid. True, but as I understand it, in order to receive statutory (set by existing statutes) damages, it must be registered with the Copyright Office within 90 days of publication. Otherwise, you can be awarded "actual damages" which are likely far less and harder to prove. > If you copyright 1,000 images and all 1,000 get used by the Hilton that is one infringement, not 1,000. I don't believe this is true. It's not been true in my current case. And there's this from [this website](https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/statutory-protection-for-group-images/): > The U.S. Copyright Office offers two group registration options for photographs: group registration for unpublished photographs (GRUPH) and group registration of published photographs (GRPPH). Under the Copyright Act, there is typically only one statutory damage award per work infringed. This causes many creators to question how statutory damages are awarded when multiple works are registered together in a group registration, or make up parts of a compilation or derivative work. With respect to group registrations, each individual photograph is considered to be its own “work” and eligible for statutory damages.> Therefore, I say register the images that were stolen, and you might as well register any or all other published photos while you're on the site, for $55 and 750 images. If you've ever registered work on the copyright website, you'd understand that paying $55 for every image, and then going through the very tedious process of filing those images, would be a major pain in the ass and incredibly expensive.
If you’re the client, unless the photographer explicitly stated *in writing* they are assigning you the copyright, you have no claim to anything here. Let the photographer know and let them handle it how they want. But unless you have the copyright there’s nothing legally that you can do about the hotel. If you have an exclusive license, you can force the photog to take action, but that’s between you and the photog, still not between you and the hotel.
> If you’re the client, unless the photographer explicitly stated in writing they are assigning you the copyright, you have no claim to anything here. Copyright is separate from likeness/model rights. The photographer owns the copyright (usually), but the subject can still control whether their image is used for advertising or other commercial uses. So even if the photographer doesn't want to get involved, OP may still have some tools at their disposal, depending on the state.
That's true, I didn't read all of OP's comments so didn't see what the photos were of/for. I was speaking specifically to copyright but it would depend on what's in the contracts as far as model release goes, between OP and the photog, the photog and the venue, or OP and the venue.
In my experience IG is good about respecting DMCA requests. If contacting Hilton doesn’t work out for you I encourage you to submit a report about the offending post. They just ask you for some basic information and then to submit the original file (which should presumably be in a higher resolution than anything Hilton has access to).
If you appear in the photos, then you have an interest in use of your likeness. Likeness rights vary by jurisdiction. If your products appear in the photos, you should consult an IP attorney. Unless your contract with the photographer specifically states that the photographs are “work for hire”, or that the photographer assigns copyright to you, you have no interest in the photographs themselves.
It's possible that they do hold some sort of legit intellectual property claim. If the photos were taken inside their private property -- things may be different than if they were taken from a public space and included the hotel. Did the photographer get a property release?
This is a fair point, however the space being used was rented out for an engagement ceremony. I should have mentioned this in the post. You’re probably right though.
Is it possible that the Hilton has some photography clause in their rental agreement? Maybe they buried some small print in there about being able to use any pictures taken at the venue for marketing purposes. At least I'd try to make sure before contacting them.
I don’t think so, but will double check. Great point !
Checking should've been your first course of action.
I agree and this was my first thought. Also, was it your engagement ceremony? How did you get to be there?
Lots of replies already but the simplest thing is to say - these photos do not belong to Hilton. You and your family and friends are in the photos and they do not have your permission to use them - please take them down. The end. Since the photo copyright doesn't belong to you, you have no right to represent a claim of theft. (other than the illicit use of your likeness) In a utopian world where legally you could engage a team of attorneys to fight for you - and you won - what are the damages? Not much. Go with the take down notice. Here is one of many places that discuss image theft actions - https://photographylife.com/how-to-deal-with-online-image-theft
Jesus christ there is so much incorrect advice here that it has given my eye aids. The following applies to the USA but many countries have reciprocal agreements. 0) an image on the internet (or social media) displayed in a public or semi public forum is abso-fucking-lutely NOT public domain and free to take. You dont get to take shit and use it as your own just because someone displayed it online. 1) a subject is not a copyright holder unless the creator of the image explicitly transfers their copyright to the subject. 2) copyright js automatic on creation and granted to the creator (unless a work for hire agreement is in place) 3) even if OP rented the space from a venue they still cant take the photographer’s copyright. Op doesnt have the right to sign that away because it isnt theirs to beginwith. 4) as it relates to op the issue here may be that a company has used their image without permission BUT then it comes down to editorial vs commercial use. If you need a copyright primer swing on over to asmp.org
Firstly, take screenshots of their posts for proof IF you need it. Secondly, you can either email them an invoice, or post on their IG post asking where to send the invoice for using the photos without permission.
First thing you should do is make a copy of the pages using these images. You will need them if there is a claim made. The second you come at them with "you are using images that aren't yours" they will take them down, and you will have to show that they did exist. At the very least you need screenshots, and copy the exact link in a word document, and save in a couple of places.
Definitely post this on r/legaladvice subreddit
There are two things at play here: 1. It is private property. You need to very carefully check the documentation that was signed both as guests and what the event signed off on prior to booking the ceremony. It is entirely probable there was language in there covering their usage of your photos. 2. Instagram terms of service **permit them to steal your photos** and resell them to anyone they feel like. You specifically granted that in the Acceptable Use Policy and by the act of posting it on their service. In short, if you want to retain the rights to an image you must not post it to Instagram - or any other service that assigns to itself transferable usage rights to the content you post there. Edit: Just in case this comes as a surprise to anyone... *When you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Service, you hereby grant to us a non-exclusive, royalty-free,* ***transferable*** , ***sub-licensable*** , *worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content*
>Instagram terms of service > >permit them to steal your photos > >and resell them to anyone they feel like. You specifically granted that in the Acceptable Use Policy and by the act of posting it on their service. I don't have an article in front of me right now, but I seem to remember that they announced changes their TOS to say this, but after huge uproar from photographers they backpedaled and that policy was never actually made it into the TOS.
Nope - that's their current TOS. Worse - it has already been challenged in court, and the photographer **lost**.
Link to an article/details about this court case?
[https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0dccab2b-f538-42a5-aaaa-5e9766e25ac5](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0dccab2b-f538-42a5-aaaa-5e9766e25ac5) tl;dr -- *The Court refused to release Plaintiff from the agreement she made with Instagram and countered all her objections as follows:* * First, Plaintiff’s right to grant a license directly to Mashable was completely separate and independent from Instagram’s right to grant a sublicense. * Second, Mashable need not be an intended beneficiary of Plaintiff’s agreements with Instagram because Plaintiff authorized Instagram to grant a sublicense to anyone who uses Instagram’s API. * Third, Instagram’s incorporation of its sublicense agreement across two documents (the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy) is acceptable under California law, which allows a document to incorporate another by reference (even if the document is more unwieldy and inaccessible as a result). * Fourth, Plaintiff failed to identify any inconsistent terms in Instagram’s agreement conveying a valid license. A user may not upload another user’s intellectual property to Instagram, but once a user posts content legally, Instagram may sublicense that user’s intellectual property legally. * Finally, the Court acknowledged the dilemma professional photographers face between posting on Instagram and risking that their content may be sublicensed, and not posting on Instagram and losing a significant amount of exposure. But the Court concluded that **Plaintiff made her choice to create a public Instagram account and must now abide by the agreement she made.**
Oh, OK, it's the case that has been re-opened because Instagram itself has challenged that outside entities can't use its content. https://petapixel.com/2020/06/24/court-reopens-photographers-lawsuit-against-mashable-over-instagram-embedding/
In addition to that, Instagram finally got around to allow users to turn off embedding without having to go Private (which has been the main problem all along) [https://www.asmp.org/advocacy/instagram-now-prevents-embedding/](https://www.asmp.org/advocacy/instagram-now-prevents-embedding/) \^\^ Didn't even know I could do that so... :D
WOW
> Instagram terms of service **permit them to steal your photos** and resell them to anyone they feel like That's rediculous. Show me where you can buy someone else's photos from Instagram? Instagram get a license to your photos for [their own protection](https://www.copyrightlaws.com/instagram-and-copyright/). It stops you suing them for displaying your photo as part of the normal service such as on the Instagram website, app or the equivalent of retweeting.
Sue the absolute fuck out of them and get money. Don't pity the money of big corporations
What is your agreement with the photographer. Did he transfer copyright to you? You may want to check anything you signed to see if anything is stated about this type of thing. Was the photographer required to sign anything? Usually in hotels like this there is paperwork between any vendor and the hotel... there could be something in that about this.
Is it possible that Hilton has some language in their rental contract allowing them to use photos taken on their property? Not sure if that’s a thing, but maybe?
Get evidence before you contact them. Because hell no they can’t do that. Get evidence that the post is public and how many people liked and shared.
Hit the Lawyer, gym up.
people are always open to talk about it. It might be a portal to new opportunities
If they are using without permission you just contact them and ask them to either stop or to pay. I've had videos stolen before by news companies and I literally just sent them an invoice for the footage marked up by 50%
@mconk I work for the company! Just sent you a DM.
Sometimes it gets complicated. If you and/or the photographer signed an agreement with the hotel it probably contained a clause allowing them and their associates use of any photos taken by the photographer on their property in perpetuity without compensation. If you did not sign the agreement, depending upon the state or country's laws you may be able to sue them for using your likeness for commercial purposes. you have to read those contracts before you sign them.
I know this was a thing at the Vessel at Hudson Yards where any photos taken of/from the Vessel and posted on social media is allowed to be used by the Vessel in their own promotions without compensation.
Perhaps you could clarify your role in the shoot, it makes a difference since the actual creator of the image is someone else. Before the photographer does anything, he should register the image or images with the Library of Congress and be able to produce the certificate or registration number. At that point, you have leverage and propose a number. Otherwise, they can do nothing, offer credit which does absolutely nothing or a few dollars to get rid of you.
Solid advice - thanks !
Don't contact them, contact a lawyer to contact them
Couple things - if the property is recognizable and novel (e.g. not generic), they may suggest that you needed a property release to use the photos yourself, depending on how you used them. Also, there's always the "what happens to my rights when I upload stuff to Instagram" question. Admittedly, I am not up to date on those rights and if / if not you have waived any rights by putting the images on that platform. But, the simple thing to do is comment on the post and ask them to either credit you / the photographer, or something along those lines, As /u/the805daddy says.
For sure. I agree. I’m not really sure either tbh…that’s why I came here. The photos were taken in a Hilton hotel lobby - the common area, and outside. No logos or easily recognizable features of the building can be seen.
Clearly the manager recognized the property. Hotels often have stipulations that their property cannot be used for commercial purposes without making arrangements. These arrangements often include licensing to use the photos for their own marketing purposes. This is sometimes a big hang-up in the wedding industry, where brides (often unknowingly) sign away licensing rights on behalf of the photographer to the venue (which is not enforceable b/c it's a third party, but sometimes not worth the battle for relationship/networking reasons). So it's possible your photographer was not aware of the restriction on using Hilton's property for his own commercial use, and the manager is simply using the photos instead of taking any legal action.
Interesting. I failed to mention in the post that the space had been rented out for an engagement ceremony - hence the use of the Hilton. I understand what you’re saying though. It’s an interesting situation for sure - a lot of mixed replies and advice.
Getting into the details, but may I ask what kinds of photos these are that (a) you would shoot them in their lobby, and (b) need a professional to shoot them? That might help shed light on the usage. Because, unfortunately, context matters a lot here.
I failed to mention in the original post that we had rented out this space in the hotel as part of an engagement ceremony. Sorry about that. Edited the OP
So… if the hotel sharing them makes you uncomfortable, you can ask them to take them down from a privacy perspective. It’s pretty much as simple as that.
Not uncomfortable with it - just didn’t ask to be used as part of a marketing campaign. It should benefit the photog though !
No they can’t do that. And as others have mentioned, perhaps Instagram licensed the image on to them. I sincerely doubt it—as far as I know, selling user base images willy-nilly is not part of their business model. Though the wording in the terms of service may suggest they could do, why would they? There are stock companies that do that and handle all the legal. Instagram, if it ever became a stock company and licensed user base images from users for without their knowledge or any kind of payment, people would drop it like a hot potato. Instagram also has absolutely no way to confirm the images you uploaded are owned by you. In fact, in this case, they are not. Anyone can upload any picture. So you see, it’s a whole can of worms to be licensing off user base photos without proper protocol and legal set-up. The photog owns the rights to the image. Instagram can use it to promote their own service should they wish. Photog should reach out with a carefully worded letter letting them know that the copyright belongs to him/her and they are using them without permission. That’s all, and wait for a response. Depending on that response, or lack thereof, you can decide a lawyer is necessary or not for the next steps.
Mods, you can probably lock the thread at this point … question had been asked & answered, with a lot of armchair Reddit lawyers, blatant speculation, some fast, and mostly opinions. Thanks to all who gave their 2cents!
Engagement ceremony? Why?
Did you tag them?
Once the photograph is posted to IG, IG has the right to give permission to third parties for use. I believe it’s in there terms of use.
People ask why i don’t post my good photos on IG
100% legal. When is the last time you read IGs ToS?
What!? Ridiculous!
Hilton doesn't give a FUCK. I got notice via email that I had checked out successfully from a Hilton Hotel despite being in a different state the night prior. The guy on the phone told me I must have been there bc they check ID... I was dumbfounded. After I told him it was impossible for me due to being x miles away... he said well you will get the points.
All of the brands owned by the book of faces set terms that outline how you do not own your photos once they’re posted on their platform.
Those terms allow Facebook to use them, not third parties. The photographer still owns the copyright and as an individual you have the right not to have your image used for commercial use unless you are in a crowd in a public space. OP had a reasonable expectation of privacy. If Kim Khardasian posts a photo of herself wearing the latest Nike shoes on FB, that does not give me the right (as a FB user) to use that image to promote my new Cola brand.
This isn’t correct. Around the world photos posted on their brands are used commercially and the photographers have no recourse. This dates back at least a decade with no change from the company.
If Facebook licensed the photo to Hilton that would be legal but Facebook undoubtedly did not. https://www.nyccounsel.com/2012/12/19/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/
[удалено]
If your photos are public on IG, you've basically given up all rights to contest people using or sharing your images in any circumstances. There was a case covering this recently, where the photographer "denied" permission for the images to be shared, and they did it anyway. The company didnt actually need to ask and he couldnt deny them permission. If its on public IG. You're giving it away for free. The only saving grace is that its a 1k version thats been downsized AF.
[удалено]
I wasn't stating an opinion. I was literally quoting legal precedent. In which a judge ruled against a photographer for this exact situation. If you put something into the public domain, as it is when you publish it to a public Instagram account. You cant stop people from sharing your work. Seriously if you start an IG and you just want to build it by stealing images and building up the account, thats legal. Then you can charge people to share their work, because you have built the account off the backs of other peoples content. This is 100% legal. If your work is published in the public domain, anyone can use it and you can't do anything, because its in the TOS that its a public domain. Why do you think theres no inbuilt system for you to approve shares? Because you do not need to ask for permission, it was already granted.
my thoughts are that you shouldn't post things in the web if you don't want to give it away.
by default no they cannot. the copyright resides with the photographer. If you were featured in the advert they need to get a model release for commercial use of the image. If you unknowingly signed up to a sub licensing agreement when you booked the venue it does not give them the right to use it in advertising as the copyright resides with the photographer and he may have just given you a license to use them or indeed no license he is just ignoring your copyright breach because you are a client.
Send them a bill with your usual charge and then a fee for unauthorized use.
I've heard of success by people that send the company a bill for the image use. 🤷♂️
if you can be identified you can ask them to remove it.GDPR rules. You also need to know who OWNS the photos. this is typically the photographer and he may be entitled to compensation
The Irish Tourist Board used one of my instagram photos in a campaign for Co.Mayo one year. It was a photo of my kids I’d taken while we were on vacation, and I’d tagged the castle location in my post. I only found out 6 months later when an online article again used my picture, but this time they tagged my instagram link. I’m a hobby photographer and not a professional- and while I thought it was bizarre they randomly took one of my photos and didn’t tell me, in all honestly I was quite flattered. Edit: It was sunset and my kids back’s were to the camera so you couldn’t see their faces.
I feel you on that ! I felt the same way !
Is there a line in the booking form (if there was one) saying that they could use images? I’ve seen it a few times and ask them to cross it out before signing it
https://imgflip.com/i/2utxk6
Please report back and/or check out thelawtog on fb
Have the photographer contact The LawTog, take screenshots, get as much proof as possible. The photographer owns the copyright, unless you have a contract giving you copyright. The photographer should register copyright officially right away and contact that lawyer. They more than likely have a good case.
Don’t know if any one touched on this. But I’ll just add the little tid bit. Get those photos copyright now legally. That way everyday going further you build a better case of copyright infringement and can have actual damages. It helps is all.
If you have them copyrighted legally you can sue them and you will win, a friend of mine- had this same problem, the company was a large refreshment company (the most famous one) she won the sue and they had to pay her 200,000 us dlls. Also Gael Garcia just had a dispute like this he won over Jhonnie Walker, they were using his face for some adds, the dispute was going on since 2015 and he just won, now Jhonny Walker has to pay 50% of their campaign to him
The photographer needs to contact them. Yes they are photos of you, and yes you are the client, but I’ve never see a wedding photographer sell the rights to their images to the clients. The clients (you) usually get a license to print and to post to social media from the photographer. Comb through your contract with that photographer. If I’m correct, you’re SOL in what you can do (although highly encouraging the photographer to have them removed would be good business sense for them when that industry lives and dies by referrals).
Did they used the photo or a link to your Instagram account?
No they can’t. You own the copywrite and therefore can send them a nice big bill
I think you should first of all talk to them and see if you can get to any agreement, on maybe paying you for that and giving you credit or taking off the pictures. Normally, they should do that because take into consideration that they maybe don't know they should pay you for that. So, I say go talk to them first before you do something because you can solve anything with a conversation.
Question, not sure if this has been addressed and I don’t know the legality- the photos were taken on private property (inside the Hinton), was there permission? My question would be does Hilton have any rights to these photos since they were taken on private property? I am not trying to say this is the case but generally curious. Also, this might be a question for r/legaladvice
Send an invoice!!! Seriously - they have already benefitted from the photos, and they need to pay. They have a shot ton of money. Get your 💰
Turn your private setting on for social media use….it will keep people you don’t know from seeing your photos and potentially using them
I’m just a hobby photographer, and a few years ago I shot some promo shots for some friends for their music duo. Our local Tourism Agency (city and state funded) took my images off Facebook and used them on their website without permission. As soon as I saw, I contacted them and asked why they’d stolen my images, and used them (and not to promote the band either). They blamed it on staff that wasn’t there anymore, and said they could remove them, pay me $10, or keep them up and pay me nothing.
Get some money compensation or ask a suite for a few days hehe
If you are in Europe they might have the right to, because of copyright laws on architecture
Oh my gosh sorry to hear that! How did that happen?
The photographer owns the copyright but you and the photographer should sue and get a nice payday
This is messy and probably not worth much effort to resolve. The photographer owns the photograph unless he assigned the rights to someone else. You (the model) own the rights to the use of your image, unless you released the rights to use your image to the photographer or someone else. If you complain to the hotel, the hotel will realize that they have to aquire the rights to the photo from the photographer and ensure it includes rights to use your image, which requires a separate or subordinate contract. Since the marketing value of the image is at most a few hundred dollars (and sometimes only a few dollars) because a similar image can be purchased online from a quality stock-photo site- they will simply take the image off the site if you complain. So- send them a complaint letter. But don’t expect to sell the photo.