Daily Mail says blogger’s photos were republished in error, offers to pay for them

Wonderland | Poynter.org
A blogger who complained about the U.K.’s Daily Mail republishing her photos of a too-skinny mannequin at The Gap now says she’s negotiating on a fee. Alice Taylor updated her blog to say that a photo editor called and told her the photos were published in error. He then offered to pay what Taylor originally asked, £250.

I replied absolutely not, I’m not willing to go back to that since the current offer (offer, mind) was £1000 per photo [donated to charities] … He agreed to that fee immediately, and I said, let’s take this back to email.

Nothing has been settled yet, however, and Taylor writes that she thinks the Daily Mail should pay a daily fee for the pictures.

Meanwhile, Howard Owens claims that in June the Daily Mail used, without permission, two photos of Suzanne Corona, which he published on The Batavian after she was arrested for adultery. He wrote in a comment on Poynter.org:

The editors did not ask permission and I got no compensation. They ignored my e-mails and I couldn’t get through on the phone. I couldn’t afford an attorney to deal with it. They owe me at least $1K per photo, especially considering how high in search the story still appears for “Suzanne Corona.”

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • http://www.facebook.com/howardowens Howard Owens

    10 hours later, still no word from the Daily Mail.

  • http://www.facebook.com/howardowens Howard Owens

    10 hours later, still no word from the Daily Mail.

  • http://www.facebook.com/howardowens Howard Owens

    I have yet to hear from the Daily Mail regarding unauthorized use of my photographs.  I posted an item on their Facebook wall which disappeared within 90 seconds.  

  • http://twitter.com/wonderlandblog Alice Taylor

    Hi!I told the Daily Mail was that the offers they were trying to agree to were out of date – and for good reason: they claimed negotation was over before it was, they tried to backtrack on offers, and they continued to publish the material taken from me, the Washington Post and BoingBoing without permission granted.I countered their offers with one simple one: they set the one-off fee – to go to charity – that they see is appropriate for their wilful infringement, which carries a court fine of up to 150,000 per infringement. I still haven’t heard back from them.Alice Taylor.