Mark Sutton claims Lewis Hamilton breached copyright

The_Abyss

The_Abyss

The_Abyss

Soldato
Joined
15 May 2007
Posts
12,804
Location
Ipswich / Bodham
This seems to be causing a fuss on a few websites after Mark Sutton posted about it on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/mark.sutton.7758/posts/10152998862726971

The issue appears to be that Lewis Hamilton's team took the images and re-posted them on all the normal social media sites, and they were then picked up by several publications but in doing so they credited copyright to Lewis Hamilton.

Any thoughts? I thought the images would still be the property of the photographer.
 
Has Lewis actually claimed ownership of the photos though? Surely once they're on something like Facebook/Instagram theres no way of ever 'owning' the images... Bit of a grey area I suspect but ultimately if Mark didn't want the images used elsewhere why would you upload them in the first place!
 
I don't know if he claimed copyright (maybe taking the picture and putting it on your own Instagram feed or similar is akin to doing the same?) but when newspapers / websites took the photos from his social feeds they credited the copyright to him.

I thought copyright existed irrespective of where they were published.
 
Lewis usually puts photo by Mark Sutton (I've noticed on other pictures) so surely it's the DM screwing up here. Bit of an overreaction by Mark =/
 
Even though Mark owns the copyright he spat his dummy out when it could have been handled much better imo. I'm all for defending ones work, revenue stream and asserting rights when all around seem to think everything is free but his little rant against huge name in the sport will hardly go down well.

He'll know the fine print on the contract for the press pass or at least the conditions of entry to what is a private venue so can impose any restrictions or requirements they want. If he doesn't like it (ala the Taylor Swift photo contract) then he doesn't have to go. But posting up a pic with no watermark and tagging the person in and then ranting when that person shares it is ridiculous. It got picked up by the media is where the whole 'stealing my copyright by attributing the image to LH' came about.

Missed opportunity really for Mark to get some positive exposure.
 
NoNameNoNumber said:
Has Lewis actually claimed ownership of the photos though? Surely once they're on something like Facebook/Instagram theres no way of ever 'owning' the images... Bit of a grey area I suspect but ultimately if Mark didn't want the images used elsewhere why would you upload them in the first place!
Click to expand...

I'd go check copyright law if I were you, that's all wrong.

Just because they are uploaded anywhere doesn't mean the image is not copyright. There does seem to be a lot of media outlets just wholesale copying images from social media these days, I can only assume they just pay the invoice when the photographer spots them and sends one in. I presume they hope most photographers will be happy that they have a photo in the newspapers with their name on.
 
By posting on Instagram, their terms state that the user must have the right to the images they are posting so the DM will refuse Sutton's claim for payment saying that Instagram/LH are the rights holders. The issue here is how LH's team have responded to Sutton seeking payment.
 
While that may be the case (DM using the images in "good faith"), they are still using copyright images and I'm sure they can't get away with the "thought it was ok" line. Just because someone uploaded images onto Instagram doesn't mean the photographer can't go after the publication that actually printed the images. For all we know the DM may well have just paid up when asked, leaving just LH and team being the problem.
 
The problem being that by posting the photos on Instagram, LH is by T+C's of the site claiming the photos are his so any money owed for the use of the photos used by the DM would have to be paid to LH/Instagram as they are (by T+C's of Instagram) claiming the copyright of the images. LH's team are probably not fussed about a token amount from the DM for photos when he's on a multi-million deal, but for a photographer it could mean a lot more.

So it depends if LH's team had paid for the photo, under what license they could use it, or if it had just been lifted and posted without permission. By the looks of things, LH's team lifted the photo, posted it, then the DM has used it claiming LH's ownership and not offered any payment to Sutton who would normally supply to the press.
 
My knowledge of copyright law isn't that far reaching but to me that sounds like the stolen goods line, which just doesn't fly. I doubt any other company would allow that to fly either. If you accidentally paid xyz electricity company instead of the company supplying you that doesn't mean you don't have to pay the actual supplier.

Essentially it would be up the the DM to claw back any money they may have paid LH, that being completely unrelated to paying the actual copyright holder (I.e. The photographer in his case).

The photographer would have every right to be ****** at LH in the above case because (at a guess) the DM, when approached proclaimed their innocence and would have said they were authorised by LH to use them. That would mean LH was essentially "selling" copyright work as his own, and as such why the photographer was asking for a lawyer.
 
Last edited:
The electricity comparison isn't right, in this case Sutton would be the wholesaler, LH is a supplier that's bypassed the meter and the DM is a customer that's tapped into LH's lamp post. LH isn't too fussed because the DM is only powering some fairy lights, but the wholesaler has a network to maintain and can't charge the DM for the fairy light usage because LH said it's his lamp post, so Sutton can only claim from LH who probably doesn't want to pay fees for a bill he wasn't expecting for bypassing the meter.
 
Even in your situation the "wholesaler" still hasn't been paid. In which case the "wholesaler" will still have the right to get their money from somewhere, either the person that thought they owned the lamppost (they didn't actually own it) or the person who used the electricity, thinking they were authorised to by the person that thought they owned the lamp post.

The person that had the fairly lights would still have to pay the wholesaler even though he thought the supplier was the person that needed paying (because the supplier said they owned the lamp post, but didn't).

Essentially, from one post we don't really know what happened, but the DM would have had to pay the photographer, no matter what reassurances they got from LH (thats assuming the photographer asked the DM for money).
 
The DM doesn't have to pay the photographer because LH claimed copyright when he posted it to Instagram, the only way for Sutton to get paid is for LH to pay out because I doubt LH will want to annoy a tabloid who could easily switch from positive stories about himself to negative ones.

If I ran up an electricity bill while my parents were away above their usual standing order, it's their name on the bill and they'd be responsible to pay it, not me. It's up to my parents to then ask me for money if they want me to cover it but the electric supplier cannot chase me for the debt because it's not my name on the document.
 
He didn't own the copyright to give it away and he wasn't authorise to do so.

To use another analogy, It's a bit like selling someone else's car (without their knowledge) and the buyer telling the real owner that they already paid for it and aren't giving it back/paying the real owner for it.

It doesn't matter what LH said, the copyright is still owned by the photographer full stop. The DM can go after LH for the money, they still have to pay the true copyright owner however.
 
hyperseven said:
Won't this harm mark's career? People take umbridge to this and denying him access to people and events.
Click to expand...

It could have this effect (depends what relationship he has with Bernie/F1 over image rights), but the alternative is it sets precedent where the sports star feel they are entitled to their own image when doing anything in public and not willing to pay photographers for their work, and the press no longer paying photographers because the star would happily give them away for free* for good publicity.

(*I doubt LH's team would want a fight over "small change" with a tabloid over a photo, especially when it was a positive one)

I've been in a similar situation where fortunately I still held the copyright in all communication, the issue here is LH posting it to Instagram. The copyright is still owned by the photographer but by posting it to Instagram LH has claimed it is his photo to use.
 
So I take it we have a copy of Suttons contract for what he has permission to photograph at the event. Not like its a free for all for photographers.

The guy comes across like a complete idiot. I reckon money for photograph and then no renewal of F1 press pass if he spouts this sort of nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom