May 25, 2007
Behind The Times
This site receives many different types of responses. Plenty of spam (Buy roche xenical online. Buy xenical and propecia online from pharmcom….), the occasional unpublishable rant, tips on stories, and genuine comments that end up published. But yesterday I received a new type of response, from News International. Here’s the email:
…………………………………………………………………………..
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing from News International Ltd, parent company of The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and the News of the World newspapers.
It has come to my attention that your website www.magculture.com/blog/?cat=10 contains an image and material belonging to News International Newspapers.
We are unable to find any record of a licence having been issued to you for this purpose, and if such licence were in existence, it would be helpful if you could let me know when and by whom such licence was granted.
If you do not have a licence, I suggest you remove the infringements immediately and let me know in writing that you have done so.
I look forward to hearing from you shortly.
Yours sincerely
Xxxxxx Xxxxx
IP Administrator
News International Ltd
…………………………………………………………………………..
I spoke with Xxxxxx Xxxxx yesterday, a humourless and unhelpful conversation that yielded the generous advice ‘You can use the images if you pay for them’, and an offer to put me through to their syndication department to discuss prices. I tried to explain the purpose of this site, that the images had been supplied by people involved in the redesign of The Times, and that I believe I have a right to write about the project and show examples of the pages. Many projects featured on magCulture are illustrated with images supplied by their creators/publishers – people usually want their work to be seen here.
But no go; clearly News International must leverage their ability to earn wherever they see the opportunity. On one level you have to admire their ruthlessness.
As I don’t have the time or resource to fight my corner, the images will be replaced soon.
I’m not trying to make this a big deal, I just think it’s important that the attitude shown by News International is noted.
If you’d like to take a last look at The Times redesign check here.
UPDATE 08.06.07 / I’m pleased to say that having spoken to a more sussed person at NI, common sense has prevailed and I’ve been told the images can stay.
8 Comments
Comment on May 25, 2007 by Michael says:
Maybe News International are having a bout of copyright mania. This possibly chimes in with News International’s attempt to sanction content posted on MySpace from resources outside the online community… in the name of advertising revenue.
Ever wondered who News International claims ownership of? Here’s the list…
http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=newscorp
Comment on May 25, 2007 by chris vivion says:
Doesn’t the use of their logo when reporting a news-worthy story (the redesign) actually place that usage well within fair usage laws? I don’t know what UK rules are, but Gawker has a pretty good fair-use policy: http://gawker.com/advertising/legal/
Comment on May 25, 2007 by Marcus says:
and what of every other design publication world wide that printed these images supplied to promote the redesign, are they being written to one by one in the same way? is it the images that appear on the pages of the paper or the images of the paper it’s self that are restricted?
Comment on May 25, 2007 by ralph says:
He is legally totally wrong – not to mention over zealous. He probably didn’t even read anything on the site. I doubt he is really speaking for everyone, and I’m sure others in the company would be irritated by this.
Comment on May 25, 2007 by Neville says:
I believe that this is a wrong assumption on the behalf of News International. our contract clearly stipulates that we are able to use these images in any publicity we arrange or supply on behalf of Research Studios, as we have done in this case.
Comment on May 25, 2007 by Amar says:
How typical of News Int!
Having have worked under the umbrella of News Int for a year or so, this does in NO WAY suprise me. They have dubious ethics from top to bottom, but back to the point…
When we tried to negotiate photography rights and usage, they were uncomprmising and hence we lost the use of some really good photographers. N.I insisted on having ALL rights and i guess this is part of their uasage/reason!
I don’t want to use this comment as an anti-N.I. rant so i shall stop.
Comment on June 1, 2007 by joe says:
If you have permission of the Photographer (or in-fact you happen to be the photographer) then it would be very difficult for NI to stop you using the shots. Scans etc may run too close to ‘reproduction’ which is a no-no. I feel for you as this is an independent and intelligent site and your simply being muscled.
Comment on June 5, 2007 by mark says:
I think I prefer you’re pixellated-out logo anyway. You should charge them for a redesign.
