intellectual-property
Is it legal for a company to put on their website a picture of my work I sent to them when&#160;applying for a job?
<p>I was applying for a landscaping job so I sent images of work I had done, and without my permission he added that photo to his website. This work is not affiliated with his landscaping company whatsoever. Is this illegal?</p>

<p>Using a photo of landscaping work not done by the company on that company's website could <em>possibly</em> be construed as false advertising, depending on jurisdiction and other factors. But more relevant to you is the fact that because you took the photo, you own the copyright on the photo, and that business is infringing on your copyright by using the photo without your permission. For general information, see <a href="https://thelawtog.com/copyright-laws-for-photographers/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Photography Copyright Laws - thelawtog.com</a>.</p>
<p>It's your choice what to do: send them an email or letter demanding they stop infringing on your copyright; or take them to civil court (more likely your local small claims court) for damages, which may cost more than it is worth. If it's a big company, you could Google for free legal consultation in your area and see if you can get a lawyer interested.</p>

<p>As BlueDogRanch says, you own the copyright on your picture, and using it without your permission is a breach of your copyright. You can sue them.</p>
<p>The details depend on where you are (which is why questions here should <em>always</em> include the jurisdiction). In the UK this would be handled by the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/intellectual-property-enterprise-court" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Intellectual Property Enterprise Court</a>, probably in its Small Claims track, which is for simple cases involving less than £10,000.</p>
<p>In the UK damages are based on the sum of two factors:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The actual damage you suffered, which is calculated as the likely amount you could have negotiated if the two of you had sat down to work out a deal. In this case, if a similar photo could be bought elsewhere for £100 then you would get £100.</p>
</li>
<li><p>&quot;Additional&quot; damages. In the US this would be called punitive damages, but UK law doesn't have punitive damages so they get called something else. If the infringement was &quot;flagrant&quot; (in this case, almost certainly) then the court will add an amount for the unjust profits earned by the infringer due to using your picture. (Actually there are two bits of law covering this, and you get the greater of the two. But since both are pretty much finger-in-the-air guesstimates by the court it doesn't matter much).</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>If you want more details, take a look at <a href="https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff75f60d03e7f57eabde7" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this surprisingly similar case</a> where the plaintiff got £6,300 for a collection of photographs that was misappropriated by a shady loft conversion contractor. That was £300 in actual damages, and £6,000 in additional damages.</p>
