Website has edited out a watermark and used my image?

send an email to the editor, with your issues, follow up with a phone call. They should not be using your photos without your permission. it's likely that there's been some miss-communication. They never want to use photos with watermarks on them, but once in a while you see it. They will almost always cut the watermark off. You need to clear this up but in doing so keep in mind they likely have made a few errors and once you point them out - again if you have too - they will apologize. Paying you may not be in the cards, but it wont hurt to ask.

Sending images or video to a news paper or tv station means you lose control period. If you stay in the editorial business, you need to get use to it . . . news moves fast. Do i like that this happens, not at all. But it does . . . there's little you can do about it but keep your work at home on your own computer. .

I know someone will chime in with some harsh "go-get-um" advise or they will say, "its because we let them get away with it that it still happens." But they would be mistaken, accidents and miss- communication are a product of life . . . Sure the papers could work harder, but most small-time papers are so overworked and understaffed that there are bound to be mistakes . . . I wish I could say "hit-em-hard" and that would solve it, but it wont. Be nice, send the editor and the writer a note with your concerns and move on . . .

Mike -

I hate to say it, but it may be too late to do anything about it.

My reasoning is that depending on how you submitted the photos, you may have unwittingly assigned rights to the news source. Many papers and tv stations now rely on reader submitted photos - and if you read the fine print - the person submitting the photo assigns all rights for publication to the organization with nothing in return from the organization.

Which is why I will never submit a photo to the "news" media.

Dave

I don't agree with Dave's assessment, given the description in the OP of how the photos were sent. If Mike submitted them via a web form that lists terms and conditions for submission which include them having unlimited use of the image, then there might be a problem. But based on the description above it seems far more likely that no such license was granted and the images were sent only for review. Mike, can you confirm how the images were submitted (on CD, via email or via the websites submission form)?
If I am right then they are infringing your copyright and you can take action.
1. Send them an email informing them that they have 7 days to remove the images or pay a license fee (or whatever you want in the way of credit) to use them.
2. For extra clout send the same as a registered letter.
3. As soon as you have done that do a Whois on the domain to find out who their web host it.
4. Go to the hosts web site and look up their copyright infringement/terms of service. (Here is an example of one hosts pages http://www.coolhandle.com/company/le...of-service/#cv).
5. If the website/paper have not taken the images down or contacted you to arrange payment after 7 days - Send the web host a properly formatted DMCA take down notice. Note, in the above link it states that they do not need to respond to notifications that are not properly formatted so do it right.
A web host is not liable for copyright infringement by their customers UNTIL you notify them of the infringement. Once notified they become liable if they don't act promptly to remove infringing materials. Web hosts aren't interested in getting into legal trouble because their idiot clients infringe your copyright so they will remove the material quickly.
The above process is quick, cheap and very effective.

Dan: I sent them a email asking if they would be interested in seeing the photos I took, they responded that I could send them, to them. I sent them a zip file of some of the photos I felt would interest them. That was the last I heard from them. After seeing the first article with my picture I sent them the request for credit or for them to replace the edited picture with the original I had sent. No reply. Then I saw it used again in another article. The web site is run by a leading media market group in western Canada. Should i maybe start checking their other websites for other use of my photo also?

Tony: I didn't think they would use a photo with a watermark that was kind of my intention of putting one on the photo, I guess maybe trying to be discrete with it so it wouldn't take away from the actual image was a mistake and I should have put it bold directly thru the image that way it would have been at least work in order to remove it?

I believe if they were submitted for review, then I would drop the hammer on the outlet and demand fair payment (which you should specify). Next step would be to talk damages, but I wouldn't start there. A news outlet should know better.

but most small-time papers are so overworked and understaffed that there are bound to be mistakes

How can a news agency "mistakenly" clone out a watermark?

Do exactly as Dan Marchant says but make sure you include a bill with your first letter. They've already used the image twice so they owe you payment. Add on a fee for "usage without permission". Companies like this need to be hammered hard and fast. I've had this sort of thing done to me and it annoys me no end. The company will be full of excuses as they probably do this sort of thing all the time. Accept no excuse, only payment.

Do exactly as Dan Marchant says but make sure you include a bill with your first letter. They've already used the image twice so they owe you payment. Add on a fee for "usage without permission".

Whislt I agree with sending a bill for use, I don't think you will get anything for usage without permission as they were initially sent with a view to them being used by the paper.

Clearly someone at the news web page screwed up - intentionally or accidently, either willfully or through a misunderstanding. How you deal with that depends on what you are looking for as a final outcome.

There is the letter of the law, the spirit of the law and then there is common sense and pragmatism. If you want to go in with guns blazing, sending an invoice, threatening breach of copyright and unauthorized use, that's your prerogative. The best case scenario is that you get the picture removed from their library and maybe $50. You will also have burnt any bridges (which may or may not concern you) and flagged yourself as being litigious and a trouble maker.

Alternatively you could use this situation to your benefit. You could make contact with the editor, explain the situation, show yourself to be reasonable, understanding and use their mistake to develop a relationship - expressing your desire to work closely with them regarding image submissions which you are sure will be properly credited and compensated in the future.

There is something of a knee jerk reaction on this board for people to aggressively defend every minor infraction and lawyer up at the slightest provocation. While this may be a legal option and fall within your rights, it's often not the best course of action if you want to build a reputation and relationships that fuel a long term career. Think PR value and the long game rather than a quick - and generally tiny - check.