[GerbenG]

Howdie folks!
So a long time ago I shot this picture of this old couple in the streets. As a young starting photographer I never even thought about asking for a model release or any of that. I think ive put it up on a website like Deviantart and on 500px, but that's pretty much it. 
Now the point is; a few weeks ago i get a message from a friend that saw it in a dutch TedxTalk about love 
vid is here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BIomRPV7XQ  (at 5:17)

What would you guys do?

[EnglishBob]

Send a cease and desist letter. If I wanted to take it further and receive damages I would use an attorney, though as you do not have a model release for the image, you would have to beware from gaining from it financially, as you could then be laying yourself open to a claim for unlicensed commercial use of the couples likeness.

EDIT: Oh, and as it is on youtube, make a copyright claim against the video.

[EdMak]

Really dependent on Law pertinent to where it was used. was it ever, to your knowledge, in the public domain. Ed.

[GerbenG]

Send a cease and desist letter.  If I wanted to take it further and receive damages I would use an attorney, though as you do not have a model release for the image, you would have to beware from gaining from it financially, as you could then be laying yourself  open to a claim for unlicensed commercial use of the couples likeness.

EDIT: Oh, and as it is on youtube, make a copyright claim against the video.

Thank you! I guess that's the thing I should do. I feel bad about it though; he seems like a nice guy, and he's not really using it for a huge profit or anything; he's probably oblivious with the fact this is actually copyright infringement. 
The thing that annoys me about it is that I just met that people on the street and I don't have a model release, and all the sudden these people end up in a youtube presentation.

[WDHewson]

It may not be stolen at all. It may have been your gift to the world via the internet.

And if you put the image on the "net" without copyright, then it is likely a gift.

Also, lots of copyright law exempts limited use by educators and schools.  Was it an unpaid educational TedTalk?

[GerbenG]

It may not be stolen at all. It may have been your gift to the world via the internet.

And if you put the image on the "net" without copyright, then it is likely a gift.

Also, lots of copyright law exempts limited use by educators and schools.  Was it an unpaid educational TedTalk?

Haha! That's a great way of looking at it. Well, I put it on my own photo websites which I do believe are copyrighted. 
I am definitely not going after money or anything, I just think it's not a decent thing to do without asking the photographer.

[MrB]

In this sort of example, it would give me a pleasant feeling so I would do nothing. I would be flattered that someone would consider my photo to be sufficiently powerful to enhance the message that they wished to convey. Right or wrong would arise as a legal issue for me only if some else were to openly claim that they made the image that was my creation.

Cheers.
Philip

[EnglishBob]

It may not be stolen at all. It may have been your gift to the world via the internet.

And if you put the image on the "net" without copyright, then it is likely a gift.

Also, lots of copyright law exempts limited use by educators and schools.  Was it an unpaid educational TedTalk?

Very little of this is accurate under US or European copyright laws.

Using an image for education is not exempt from copyright laws, Journalistic purposes is.

All images are copyrighted, uploading them to the internet in general does not relinquish that copyright. You do have to beware of which sites you put an image on and what their terms are. You do not have to register an image for copyright laws to protect it.

[RobertMurariu]

Howdie folks!
So a long time ago I shot this picture of this old couple in the streets. As a young starting photographer I never even thought about asking for a model release or any of that. I think ive put it up on a website like Deviantart and on 500px, but that's pretty much it. 
Now the point is; a few weeks ago i get a message from a friend that saw it in a dutch TedxTalk about love 
vid is here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BIomRPV7XQ  (at 5:17)

What would you guys do?

Hi there!
There is little you can do about it. If the picture would have been used in commericial purpose you could claim copyrights but for this case i guess the least they can do is adding an addnotation in the youtube video with you as the author.
Regards
Robert

[GrahamS]

Demand credit as the author or the removal of the image. In future, watermark your images with © GerBenG or whatever.

[GerbenG]

Demand credit as the author or the removal of the image.  In future, watermark your images with © GerBenG or whatever.

A watermark is an easy to do thing; but I just don't like the look of it... maybe i deserve to have my picture stolen in this case

[WDHewson]

It may not be stolen at all. It may have been your gift to the world via the internet.

And if you put the image on the "net" without copyright, then it is likely a gift.

Also, lots of copyright law exempts limited use by educators and schools.  Was it an unpaid educational TedTalk?

Very little of this is accurate under US or European copyright laws.

Using an image for education is not exempt from copyright laws, Journalistic purposes is.

All images are copyrighted, uploading them to the internet in general does not relinquish that copyright.  You do have to beware of which sites you put an image on and what their terms are.  You do not have to register an image for copyright laws to protect it.

Do some homework!!

The Classroom Use Exemption
Copyright law places a high value on educational uses. The Classroom Use Exemption (17 U.S.C. §110(1)) only applies in very limited situations, but where it does apply, it gives some pretty clear rights.

Obama in class CC by-nc Gilkata 
In-class viewing is a public performance, but it's permitted under the Classroom Use Exemption
To qualify for this exemption, you must: be in a classroom ("or similar place devoted to instruction"). Be there in person, engaged in face-to-face teaching activities. Be at a nonprofit educational institution. Sounds a little restrictive?

[EnglishBob]

I did, the use was in a video, education exemption did not apply.

[WDHewson]

I did, the use was in a video, education exemption did not apply.

The ultimate proof would be the result of an infringement trial.

TedTalk speakers are unpaid.  And you'd be hard pressed to call them non-educational.  There is a lot of latitude in interpreting the following.....

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

[GrahamS]

The blatant use of any image taken from the internet for any purpose whatsoever without the permission of the copyright owner is unacceptable. Period.

[WDHewson]

I did, the use was in a video, education exemption did not apply.

The blatant use of any image taken from the internet for any purpose whatsoever without the permission of the copyright owner is unacceptable.  Period.

If not formally copyrighted, and you upload into the internet "cloud" you've donated your image to the public domain.

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/d...n_Tree.pdf

It is however, gracious, but not legally required to acknowledge the artist.  

I'd suggest the torts and common law precedents are pretty clear on all this.

[WDHewson]

I did, the use was in a video, education exemption did not apply.

The blatant use of any image taken from the internet for any purpose whatsoever without the permission of the copyright owner is unacceptable.  Period.

If not formally copyrighted, and you upload into the internet "cloud" you've donated your image to the public domain.

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/d...n_Tree.pdf

It is however, gracious, but not legally required to acknowledge the artist.  

I'd suggest the torts and common law precedents are pretty clear on all this.