EMA-RTV is a Spanish media organisation which claims to represent “radio, television, new technologies, multimedia projects and training initiatives in Andalusia, Europe and Latin America”. You’d think that some of that training might relate to good practice, and you’d also like to think they might know a thing about copyright. It seems not to be the case on either count.
Some time ago we discovered they had blatantly stolen a photograph from our site. This one to be specific (from an article published on Spain Buddy on the 15th September 2015).
We stumbled on the image on the EMA-RTV website earlier this year on /www.emartv.es/2016/02/15/olula-del-rio-18 (the link has now been removed (see below). It would very much seem to us that this article has been knowingly and blatantly stolen. Why?
- It doesn’t take an expert to see that this is the exact same image!
- The EMA-RTV article was published on the 15th February 2016. It remains live at the time of writing.
- One all of our own images on Spain Buddy have a link to our standard copyright notice – that’s the red subtitle text you can see under the image (you can read that here if you are that way inclined). Nobody who had bothered to read that would use our images. It’s clear we reserve all our rights and will invoice if we find them being used.
- The watermarked copyright notice on the image itself has been cropped out. A second and blatant show of disregard for our inherent rights of ownership. A clear indication of intent.
- The image has clearly been downloaded and uploaded to their website (where somewhat ironically it is protected from download).
Since discovery we sent the following email to EMA-RTV at email@example.com, the contact address on their website on the 26th of July.
Por favor, vea los archivos adjuntos con respecto a la utilización de los derechos de autor protegidos el contenido que está usando pertenece a SPAIN BUDDY en el sitio web de EMA-RTV.
Como una organización de medios estamos seguros de que son conscientes de la gravedad de Vulneración de derechos de autor.
La imagen en cuestión nos pertenece y la marca de agua de copyright ha sido claramente recortada de la imagen antes de su uso en su página web, lo que demuestra que usted sabía que la toma de esta imagen no era legal.
Además, bajo la imagen hay un enlace a los derechos de autor como vínculo de notificación Y también fue ignorado.
Quedamos a la espera de recibir el pago en línea de la cantidad 1000€ a la recepción de nuestro aviso sobre los derechos de autor de la imagen mencionada.
Quedamos a la espera de recibir el pago en línea d la cantidad 1000€ a la recepción de nuestro aviso sobre los derechos de autor de la imagen mencionada.
We have received no reply. Not even an acknowledgement. We sent a reminder again including this original message on the 7th of September again, you guessed it, no response.
So, here we are opening this up to public view and search engines (at 18:00 on 31.10.16). We take no pleasure at all in embarrassing anyone but we have the right to protect our work, and we have the right to seek compensation for it should it be taken and used without our permission.
The original post when show privately carried the following footnote.
EMA-RTV, here is your chance to resolve this… You can reach us via our contact page at any time. Simply removing the image is not acceptable, as you can see all evidence has been retained amongst our records. Whilst this post is published it is as yet hidden from search engines and the URL has not been circulated to anyone but yourselves.
What next? We await your proposals for a resolution to this situation within seven days from the time and date of this article. Should we hear nothing or be dissatisfied with your proposals we will free this article to search engines, we will also publicly distribute it as we see fit and/or seek appropriate legal advice.
This article was published privately at 15:00 on 10.10.16 and EMA-RTV were shown it privately. We did get a reply saying they had removed the page – the reply included no apology and contained a veiled threat of legal action. We made what we consider these three reasonable requests which we consider more than reasonable under the circumstances…
1. An apology (privately is fine).
2. The staff member who published that article be given some training on copyright abuse.
3. A small donation to a children’s charity in Andalucía, say €50 (which is a very small amount compared to what our lawyers might seek for use of our copyright image).
We can only assume that none of the requests were met as we have received no further communication despite a reminder and a long extension of the deadline stated above (21 days rather than 7).
Just for the record, the legal definition of defamation is as follows:
“In Spain, defamation constitutes a criminal act, known as “calumny” and “injury” under Articles 205 and 216 of the Penal Code. In Spain, ‘calumny’ is a crime by spreading or publishing a falsehood when you either know it is not true, or with ‘reckless’ contempt of the truth” (Source)
No falsehoods or contempt here… Just FACTS.