Florida Gallery and one of my Photos- How to proceed?

[naturephoto1]

I am wondering if anyone else has had this happen before. I just stumbled upon this earlier this morning.

A gallery has one of my photos on its website on their About Us page; below is the link:

http://www.ubfineart.com/aboutus.html

Here is the link to my website page for this image:

http://www.nelridge.com/picturepages/aseaofredribbonofwhite.htm

The gallery has neither asked permission or approached me about representing my work. I have not participated in Florida Art shows for over 4 years. This image was mentioned in the review of my Website in the August 2000 Issue of Shutterbug magazine. The gallery has credited me with the image. But, the gallery has a poor rendering of the image, they have removed my copyright information, changed the title, and I presume are listing the matted image size as their listed 30" X 40" size. Also, the gallery is listing this a Gelatin print when in fact it is a Fuji Crystal Archive Photo.

I am looking for gallery representation presently and will need to adjust my pricing accordingly. However, I am not sure of the best way of approaching this issue. If nothing else can be done, I will need to contact PPA for legal action.

I would appreciate any input.

Rich

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It sounds like there's a secondary market for your prints. Congratulations.

 

[blaze-on]

First, they appear to be a new gallery. Second, I'd take it as a compliment of sorts that they liked the image enough to plunk it on there. It is an advertisement for you, however they did violate by not asking permission.

I would email them, ask them to remove the image. Go from there..

Or, ask them to rectify the information (correct title, medium, etc) and add a link to your website, and you'll consider allowing them to represent you.

 

[jovo]

I haven't a clue about how to resolve your problem, but I think the image is among your best. It's an excellent abstract design with compelling color.

Good luck with the gallery, though. Have you contacted them at all about it and made your concerns clear? That, and the warning that an unsatisfactory response will lead to legal action may be all it will take.

 

[davetravis]

Hi Rich,
I guess when you did the Florida shows, you signed the release form allowing them to use your image for advertising and promotional purposes?
IMO, it's a tad unreasonable for them to assume they still have that permission after 4 years...
You still control your material.
Work it out with them.
Good luck.
DT

 

[Monophoto]

Have you ever sold a print of this image? If not, then the only way these dudes could possible generate a print would be to snag something off the web, in which case the quality would be inferior. That would suggest that the more likely scenario is that they are using your image in "bait and switch" advertising.

Also, I don't know of many serious "galleries" that also offer framing services, rental space, and art supplies. The sense I get is that they are selling decorative "art", aka "schlock". That may not be where you want to be.

I suggest sending them a friendly, non-threatening letter (a real letter, on paper, certified mail, return receipt requested) advising that you have noticed that they are using your work on their site, and since they appear to believe that they are representing you, you believe that it would be appropriate to formalize a representation agreement. Start the negotiation by proposing terms - they cover all selling expenses, you get 80% of the sale price, etc.

Involving a lawyer at this stage would be your cost - and my experience is that having the initial letter sent by a lawyer ( or with a lawyer marked for a copy) is likely to scare them off. So if I were in your situation, I would write the initial letter myself, but make sure to retain complete documentation (hence, the return receipt) to be able to later involve a lawyer if that is necessary.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you sold a print, and it's changed hands, it seems to me that it is theirs to sell. Alas in the U.S., the artist doesn't get anything directly from sales in the secondary market, though if the work sells in a prestigious venue, the artist can ask higher prices for new work.

Using it on the web for promotion is another matter, but I would think you could work with them to turn it to your advantage.

 

[naturephoto1]

I have sold a number of copies of this image over the years, however, we have not at this point printed the largest that we believe the image can be printed or certainly the size listed on the gallery website. Additionally, the gallery has changed the title and I have certainly not signed or numbered anything in this size for this image.

Many galleries do offer framing services as part of their business particularly for framing the work of artists that they represent. One that immediately comes to mind is the Gomez Gallery in Baltimore. They are (or were) a fair sized well thought of gallery that I met with some years ago. Another gallery in NJ that is planning to represent my work in their still being constructed third location is in Redbank. They wish to represent the work in this location due to the larger space which will afford exhibiting my larger work. When I met with this gallery in their second location, they too offer framing services for the work that they represent.

As to any legal action. That would be turned over to PPA (Professional Photographers of America and their legal people- they have deeper pockets than I).

Rich

 

[noseoil]

Did you register the image with the library of congress and recieve a copyright prior to the "publication" of this image in the public eye? If so, you can certainly request that the image be withdrawn from circualtion on their site. If not, you are s.o.l. on this one. There are a bunch of legal and ethical questions here, but the bottom line is that you must protect your work first, or suffer the consequences later. Any claims about "loss of income" from the use of an image must start with a copyright. This is a good lesson for all of us to learn.

If it goes as far as litigation at some point, get a contingency fee agreement, or you can be out big bucks to the lawyer who represents you and it will be insult to injury. Remember if this is the manner in which they do business, the gallery is about the money first, about art second and last consideration they will have is about the ethics involved. Hammer the weakest link first and the chain will fall part. Best, tim

P.S. I am not a lawyer, never played one on tv, or claim to have any legal knowledge whatsoever.

 

[waynecrider]

Hey Rich have you called them up and mentioned that you're the artist and asked a few questions in a non-confrontation manner like you just want to know type of way? If their wrong in what they did, it will put them on edge and probably cause something to happen if you want it so. Or, it might lead to representation if you play your cards right and they look to makeup for what they did if wrong. Just a thought..

 

[naturephoto1]

Hi Tim,

No, I have never listed the image with the Library of Congress. Copyright is implied from the moment of inception. However, it is my understanding of the copyright from a discussion with the Library, reading the application, and/or reading from PPA's doculments that once the image has been published the image is copyrighted (as with my photo of the White Bengal Tiger in the Microsoft Encarta). In the case of websites my understanding is that once shown on the domain it is considered published. The image has been on my website since 2000 with a copyright notice and my name. Additionally, I have the original transparency (taken in a workshop with Dewitt Jones in 1991; Dewitt is familiar with the image); all of the digital files that we use to print images sit with Bill Nordstrom (Laser Light Photographics) in Aptos, California with the dates for the original production of the digital files.

Rich

 

[Brian Gatien]

I note that the web page on which your image appears invites us to celebrate the "exiting" (sic) 2007-2008 season. Perhaps there is a hidden message.

Although the gallery owner is not unsophisticated:
http://music.miaminewtimes.com/2007-03-01/calendar/paintings-off-the-beaten-path/

 

[MikeSeb]

My non-lawyer understanding of copyright law is that, yes, you have copyright from the moment of a work's creation; but that you have to be registered with the Copyright Office in order to gain the maximum legal relief if infringed. Without registration, my understanding is that your damages are sharply limited, and are a fraction of what they'd be if the work were registered.

You may also have time--is it 90 days--to register AFTER the infringement is discovered. So register right away.

Better yet, talk to a lawyer about your options, perhaps thru PPA as you suggest. I'd not do anything on my own that might limit my legal options later.

 

[gr82bart]

I don't think this has anything to do with copyright.

It looks like the gallery has one of Rich's prints and is selling it, that's all. It's like if I had one of his prints and was selling it on eBay. Maybe th original owner passed away and his/her estate is trying to sell the print. Dunno.

Anyway, I wouldn't assume the worst here and just give them a call and find out the details. Asking us APUGers to speculate is only entertaining at best.

Regards, Art.

 

[naturephoto1]

I don't think this has anything to do with copyright.

It looks like the gallery has one of Rich's prints and is selling it, that's all. It's like if I had one of his prints and was selling it on eBay. Maybe th original owner passed away and his/her estate is trying to sell the print. Dunno.

Anyway, I wouldn't assume the worst here and just give them a call and find out the details. Asking us APUGers to speculate is only entertaining at best.

Regards, Art.

Hi Art,

There in lies the problem. Even if the Gallery does have one of my prints, I have never printed the image larger than 16" X 24". The next larger size for printing the image would be 20" X 30" which would have the 30" X 40" mat size that I presume that the gallery is referring. Additionally, the Gallery has changed the title of the image from A Sea of Red and a Ribbon of Red and White (or shortened to A Sea of Red) to Red Valley California. The only way that the gallery could have gotten the dimensions of the photo for 30" X 40" (I presume mat board measurements) would be by checking my website.

I will put a call in to PPA later this morning and try to speak with one of the attorneys to see how they suggest that I proceed.

Rich

 

[removed account4]

Hey Rich have you called them up and mentioned that you're the artist and asked a few questions in a non-confrontation manner like you just want to know type of way? If their wrong in what they did, it will put them on edge and probably cause something to happen if you want it so. Or, it might lead to representation if you play your cards right and they look to makeup for what they did if wrong. Just a thought..

this sounds like a great idea to me ...

... maybe they have their measurements confused, don't forget
those guys at nasa forgot to convert metric to imperial, or was it the other way around ?

john

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It could also be a smaller print that has been rematted with a more generous mat than you originally provided.

 

[noseoil]

Rich, please let us know what you find out with the call to the PPA. I'm sure many people will find this of interest. Good luck, tim

 

[naturephoto1]

I put a call in and spoke with the Copyright Coordinator for PPA. I was told that my understanding of copyright is correct and she confirmed, there is no question that these are one in the same image. The Copyright Coordinator has recommended that I list the images with the Library of Congress as we all knew.

The Copyright Coordinator has suggested to take a gentle hand and to speak with the gallery, find out about the photo and particulars, find out their intentions and to then proceed accordingly. If I have no luck with the gallery, that either I or PPA would contact the web master to remove the image from the website, if needed PPA would send a letter off and if need be get their attorneys involved, .

I have put a call in to the gallery and left a message asking that they return my call regarding one of the images on their website. I am awaiting a return call at this point (presuming they call).

Rich

 

[naturephoto1]

I just spoke with the owner of the Gallery. It turns out that she was the woman that was a Gallery Owner that had purchased this photo from me at an art show in Delray Beach, FL 4 or 5 years ago.

David was correct, the Gallery had decided to re-mat/re-frame the 16" X 24" image larger than I had prepared the work. So the dimensions were increased from the 24" X 32" mats to the 30" X 40" size. The gallery owner thought that the web designer had made an error in the title. She was aware of the proper title of the work. The owner asked how I found the image and the website and I explained that I had run a web search for my name to find web listings.

I will keep my fingers crossed, this may end up as a source for Gallery representation in Florida and elsewhere in the world.

Rich

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Glad to hear it worked out for the best. Good luck!

 

[Dinesh]

Rich, I'm glad to hear that this was resolved to your satisfaction.

 

[Harrigan]

Many galleries do offer framing services as part of their business particularly for framing the work of artists that they represent. One that immediately comes to mind is the Gomez Gallery in Baltimore. They are (or were) a fair sized well thought of gallery that I met with some years ago. Another gallery in NJ that is planning to represent my work in their still being constructed third location is in Redbank. They wish to represent the work in this location due to the larger space which will afford exhibiting my larger work. When I met with this gallery in their second location, they too offer framing services for the work that they represent.


Speaking of legal action the Gomez Gallery sold a print of mine and I never received a dime for it. You better be very careful in dealing with them if you ever do. However I think they are long gone. imagine.

 

[gr82bart]

Rich,

I had a hunch this was all good. Glad it was in the end.

Regards, Art.

 

[Gay Larson]

I hit the link for the gallery website and your print was not there. Guess they took it off.