pics that didn't develop at photo printing outlet turned up in magazine?

Question

here goes; i put 7 35mm camera films into well known shop to be developed,went back 7 days later, was told 1 film had not developed and given negatives,and black photos,the film was from madonna concert at manchester arena,this was almost 2 years ago.
then today im reading a magazine and see 11 of the pics i took across 2 pages,i can prove i took these pics,have been in touch with the so called photographer this morning and he claims he took them,and says he will sue me if i pursue a false claim,
the evidence that i took them is clear to see as seat number is visible on 2 pics,and the 2 girls in front of us will remember us as we were almost ejected for taking the pics in first place.as dancer had been flash blinded and fell night before.
1.how did he get photos,does he have friends that work in photo shops.
2.help,what do i do next
been in touch with magazine too,they were very helpful but its down to photographer.

hope it helps is Canon EOS Rebel T2 28mm-90mm 35mm SLR Camera

yes i have the negatives but they are blank completely,i am not pro but told i have very steady hand thats all,also i know for sure i took the pics,

heres a good email i just received proves me right
photographers email response sent 11.54..
i am aware of the circumstances regarding the photos for madonna concert,i can assure you i received these from a third party who i cannot name as they were sent to me anonimously,if as you say,you took the photographs in question i cannot dispute this fact,and therefore would like to resolve this amicably,could you please telephone me on 012*****783 to discuss this matter in person thaynk you *.**h**s.

Answer 1

Ok first of all, I'm wondering what kind of a camera you have,could you please post that and then I can answer your question in detail, I am a photographer and also have a lab.

ok, this is the deal, YOU have the negatives, and you have the photographs.you say the photos are black, I think you'll find if you look at the negatives they will be very light in colour, this is because they are under exposed, not enough light. ( compare them to some other negs) the reason they are light is because you have insufficient light, and if you are adamant these are your photos ( which I suspect they are not) no offence, there is nothing to stop you taking your negatives and having them reprinted elsewhere.
I can assure you, ( as I work for magazines) you have to have pretty good pics to get them in a magazine.whats to say this guy wasn't right near you or even next to you, maybe 5 rows back? If he is a professional and getting his work published, I can assure you he will have a lens as long as the Eiffel tower.go and check your negs now.I do hope this helps.

just an afterthought, no amount of flash will help you at a concert, ONLY if it is a close up face photo, these professional, KNOW how to use there camera and do not need flash, No amount of flash froma a distance can light up a whole stage, think about it, if you had a lighter, could you light up your whole living room with one flick? its the same with a flash on a camera at a concert.

Answer 2

I had the same problem at a Simply Red concert two years ago.
Strangely, I was also using a 35mm Canon EOS 300 Rebel camera although I know it was not the cameras fault.
My pictures all turned out black and when I asked why I was told that at most concerts there are special 'strobe' lights (facing out)that 'knock out' normal photography (I think he said it was 'anti flash'). Only cameras with special filters can take pictures at these concerts. Apparently, this so ordinary people cannot profit from selling the pictures and take away the livliehood of the professionals who pay for the privilege of taking the pictures with copyright protection. Also, are you aware that the standard camera flash only has a range of about twenty feet?. Everything beyond will just be dark or near dark.
I don't know the exact circumstances but, it could be this guy is telling the truth if he was sat next to you or behind.

Answer 3

this is a case of simple communications law - an image taken by you was used for profit without your knowledge.

be a hard *** for at least a short time. don't be rude, just tell them that it's really out of your hands and this guy will have to speak with your attorney and that as a professional photographer your images have proprietory value.

you need to know where he got the images from and that will possibly open up a new can of worms for you. not only is that a complete rip-off of your images, but that this may have been done in the past.

this photographer that purchased stolen images and then presented them as his own is a thief and plaguerist and should be outted to the press and the magazine that he fooled into publishing them - who by the way are also exposed to legal action here.

you have the negatives and his e-mail basically confessing - so you have him.

i would require him to pay you thousands of dollars, but i would also get legal counsel in this matter as the magazine and 3rd party seller have also broken the law.

as a fellow photographer, this sort of thing just steams me to no end.

it's nearly impossible for photographers to get a break in the photo business the way it's set up these days - and this guy just steals your stuff.

as far as i'm concerned, this guy may as well have come into your house and stolen the money you were going to use to pay rent.

be very hard on these people and see if you can make all associated with the ripoff pay indeed.

you might even consider telling the magazine that you will prosecute them unless they take you on as a staff photographer - ask this nicely - perhaps through your lawyer.

Answer 4

At the end of the day, the only way to resolve the matter would be by an action for breach of copyright. You, as claimant, would have to prove on the balance of probablities, that you took the photographs. I suspect that might be very difficult. It would also be very expensive and you have to decided whether or not the cost of proceedings would be justified by the value of the shots.

Incidentally, I don't believe for one moment the answer which says strobe lighting is designed to defeat amateur photographers. That is just nonsense - after all, a flash gun is nothing more than a portable strobe light.

Answer 5

Chances are they will be fine but it all depends on how they have been kept. The best way to find out is to take the film to your processor and have it developed - not printed. Saves money this way. Then scan the negatives into your computer. If you can't do this, view them through a slide viewer. Select the ones you like and have the developer print only those you choose. Cheapest way is the computer if you can scan them in. You can get a slide viewer for most scanners these days, just slip the film through it and save the good ones. I do this all the time, even on good films, as it save heaps of money. You only pay for prints of the good ones, or if you have the equipment you can print them yourself. Another alterative is to have them put on a CD and you can view on your computer and later select what you want and get only those ones printed.

Answer 6

It would be difficult to prove without the negatives in your possession.

You were shooting film, so how can you be certain these are the exact pictures you took? The photographer could have been rows behind you and capturing the seats from his vantage point just as you did. And let's face it, concert pictures look basically the same.

There may be other explanations besides lab theft and fraud. I hope you can get it straightened out.

Answer 7

you really should pursue this legally for several reasons. one that someone at the lab ran a blank roll and took yours giving you the blank roll. they should be caught and fired because thats stealing.most one hour photo's would fire them on the spot if caught taking someones photo's. two, this guy who got the photo's should have run the person's name with the photo's because he didn't proves he knew it was dirty deal.

go to a lawyer and stop this so they don't do it to another person.

i also have to point out to one of the other people who responded aabout his photo's being black. i've developed plenty of concert sshots and never seen any be black unless you opened your camera back. they most likely exposed your film by accident and didnt want to admit it they should have at least given you a new roll of film unles it really was you that messed it up. but i doubt it.

Answer 8

if you really got that email, sue his butt. make him name the "anonymous source" in open court. I don't know English law, in US you could sue both mag and photog. If you really believe these photos are yours, you should consult a barrister who handles copyright infringement. Also the photo lab could have some liability as they actually stole your property.

That being said, read answer #1 carefully. It is possible that he got those pix himself, but the email makes it a very murky case.

Also, the strobe light answer is pure bs-i've been shooting for 40 years and never heard of anything so impossible. Consult the laws of physics.

Answer 9

Sounds to me like you have a pretty good case to sue the photo lab but good.
Maybe you'll be the new owner of that lab and not hire dishonest people.
Best Wishes

Answer 10

If you do not pursue a false claim can he really sue you and win?