PetaPixel

Daily Mail Publishes Photo Anyway After Owner Denies Them Permission

The Daily Mail is no stranger to copyright infringement accusations, but this time they’ve taken it even further — publishing a photo after the owner denied them permission to do so. Alice Taylor of Wonderland recently snapped a photo of a “dangerously emaciated” mannequin promoting GAP’s “Always Skinny” line of clothes. As the photo started spreading on the web, The Daily Mail emailed Taylor to ask for permission to use the image, which she agreed to — on the condition that the newspaper donate £250 to a charity of her choice. When they balked at the price, she gave them a flat out “no”.

That same day, they published an article (which has since been taken down [Update: It's back up]) using both the photo and quotes lifted from The Washington Post without include any linkbacks. Taylor is now demanding that they cough up a £2000 donation for the unauthorized use.

(via Wonderland via Reddit)


Update: The Daily Mail has apologized for publishing the photos, which was apparently due to a breakdown in communications. They’re planning to settle with the Taylor.


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • Jason

    It appears that the article hasn’t been taken down after all.

  • Jason

    It appears that the article hasn’t been taken down after all.

  • Sfaulk

    Next time ask the newspaper to send you the money directly, and send the charity the check yourself. + 250 pounds that’s ridiculous, isn’t that about 350- 400 dollars? Newspapers don’t even pay their A team photographers that in two days of work which includes about 6 different assignments. I’m not surprised they used it without your consent knowing that you are an opinionated self richeous person and all. Don’t get me wrong though, They did steal your image, they stole it because you are such an opinionated self richeous person, you pissed them off, and because you are not very professional to boot. You make professional photographers want to puke. Blaaaaaa. Burp. Spit.

  • http://twitter.com/Blackbird_2 Bob Dunkin

    It was 250 since she doesn’t like the Daily Mail.  She basically did NOT want them to use it when they asked her for it.  Which means they KNEW they couldn’t use it without permission, but did so anyways.  Also note, she’s not a professional photographer. 
    Is it unprofessional…maybe, for a photographer… But if someone has a photo that they’ve taken, on their blog, and they don’t want it used elsewhere, and are prodded, yeah, give them a number they will refuse.  If they refuse, no problem.  If they accept, fine, the money goes to charity.  If they refuse AND use the photo, they have a much bigger problem than JUST copyright infringement.  Hence the reason for now asking for 1000 for each charity.  They tried to do right, refused, and went with the only thing they could think of…breaking the law. 

  • Sfaulk

    Bob, I agree whole heartedly about the infringement, except that they could have done a repost from her site, and given her an online credit without even asking her permission.  Post online and that’s what you get these days, I’ll be surprised if a judge will even hear the case. 
    Also, she asked for £250 Pounds, that equals to 414.78 Dollars US. That is totally ridiculous, even if it was going toward a charity, which I think is a good thing, but she went about it the wrong way. She should have given them a good price and then after receiving the check turned it over to whomever she liked. The intentions were admirable except that she didn’t think about it long enough. Oh well some charity out there would have loved the money. Maybe next time.

  • Reg Michaels

    The Daily Mail is one of the richest newspapers in the world. It posted profits of more than £100m last year, and puts a huge amount of it back into its journalism. That’s why the paper alone sells more than 2 million copies a day, and it’s website is the most popular in the world after the New York Times. Its photographers are some of the best remunerated in the business, and its picture desk would think nothing of spending £1000 for a basic photo, and up to £100,000 if neccessary….That said, they are not idiots and are not going to pay much money for stuff alreadt up on the web. Pics which anybody can see on the web are worth a few pounds maximum. They were polite to this woman and she was rude, so they got the image elsewhere. This case won’t go to court, because it’s internet nonsense.

  • Mike Reed

    She wasn’t in the least rude. She explained she didn’t care for the Mail, and made an offer they’re quite within their rights to refuse. But having refused the offer, it’s extraordinary to just post the pictures anyway. Whether or not it would ever go to court, it demonstrates a basic lack of manners and care. Not even a credit or link! Typical Mail.

  • Anonymous

    Sfaulk, £250 might be a reasonable price, in fact in the article is a link to another similar post where Times online offered the same money for a single photo (while the Daily Mail stole it too). And the price isn’t that high considering the potential such an article has (widely reposted and shared, etc.). Above all, if you don’t want to pay for it, simly don’t use the stuff.

  • db

    Sorry? She was rude..? Did I miss something in the article, were you party to the discussions or are you implying that saying ‘no’ to someone is rude in itself? 

  • db

    Sorry? She was rude..? Did I miss something in the article, were you party to the discussions or are you implying that saying ‘no’ to someone is rude in itself? 

  • http://twitter.com/Blackbird_2 Bob Dunkin

    Under what would they have been able to use her words and her photos, even with credit without her permission?  It’s not critiquing her, its using her photo and her words in their own critique of the company. It’s certainly not fair use, and ‘since it’s on the net’ isn’t an excuse. (Not directed at you, but its a common theme)  Just because many people can see it doesn’t make it public domain.  They also didn’t come back with a counter-offer.  They just said it’s too much. That’s not really bargaining.  She notes that she can’t just give it away, so it’s likely that their first offer was ‘can we have it’.  A good counter-offer would be 100 or 150, but they didn’t.  Even that may be too much, since it’s just the website, but it is of the Daily Mail…they could afford it if they wanted it that badly, or gone to the nearest GAP and taken the photograph themselves since it’s likely that more than one store had that mannequin.  

  • Timbo

    Well, it’s all over Twitter now…

    Funny – if the aggrieved party were the MPAA or the RIAA, the Daily Mail would be receiving a bill for many thousands of pounds with heavy legal threats…

  • http://twitter.com/kilkeal barry laughton

    Let’s face it, it’s theft, maybe the price was outrageous, but with any outrageous price one doesn’t have to buy. I may think that the price of 42″ plasma TV is outrageous, but that does not give me the right to steal it. If you can’t afford the price you can’t buy the article. Simples.

  • RobertB

    She owned the photo. Fact. She has the right to sell the photo for any amount she wishes. Fact. She has the right to say no. Fact. They stole the photo. Fact. They are wrong. End of story. 

  • RobertB

    She owned the photo. Fact. She has the right to sell the photo for any amount she wishes. Fact. She has the right to say no. Fact. They stole the photo. Fact. They are wrong. End of story. 

  • RobertB

    She owned the photo. Fact. She has the right to sell the photo for any amount she wishes. Fact. She has the right to say no. Fact. They stole the photo. Fact. They are wrong. End of story. 

  • Anonymous

    We that wasn’t very nice of them!!

  • JR

    Completely agree. I don’t understand how this scenario could be interpreted any other way. 

  • RobertB

    What I find very sad in this whole affair is the Daily Mail knows the owner of the photo will not sue because of the costs involved in litigation. The Mail has a cadre of lawyers on retainer who can keep any litigation on hold for years; virtually bankrupting the owner. To them, it’s just a waiting game. Unfortunately there is no organization that will, or can, take up the fight on behalf of the little guy. Until there is an independent body, with enough teeth to be able to stand up to these giants who willingly and blatantly purloin the work of others, thefts like this will continue without retribution. 

  • selfrighteousbrother

    I know I’m being ‘self richeous’, but it’s spelled ‘self-righteous’.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kristin-Oldfather/575375784 Kristin Oldfather

    It’s just a snapshot taken of some clothes… I feel like she is overreacting. But that’s just me. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kristin-Oldfather/575375784 Kristin Oldfather

    It’s just a snapshot taken of some clothes… I feel like she is overreacting. But that’s just me. 

  • RobertB

    I don’t get. What does it take for people to realize that theft is theft and it’s wrong. It doesn’t matter if it is only a snap shot…there is NO justification for stealing it. She has a right to be ticked off and she has a right to send them an invoice for whatever amount she chooses. If the shoe were on the other foot, the newspaper would come down on her like a ton of bricks, no matter what the intrinsic value of the photo was.