Philip Chudy Settles With Pictor

Posted on 2/1/1999 by Jim Pickerell | Printable Version | Comments (0)



February 1, 1999

In this era of instant communications it still occasionally takes a long

time for information related to happenings in Europe to make its way across

the Atlantic.

We have just learned that in late July 1997 Pictor admitted in Central

London County Court to owing Chudy approximately £45,000 in

commissions on licensing fees plus 8% interest on the outstanding balance.

Philip Chudy has had a long battle with Pictor International in an effort to

collect the commissions he was owed for the licensing of his photographs.

In making his claim he had to rely on figures that were contained in sales

reports issued to his personal account. The majority of the photographs

pertinent to this case are jointly owned and copyrighted with his former

artist partner who has a separate account with Pictor.

The Court ordered that all monies be paid before August 26, 1997. Pictor

made partial payment before the deadline and completed payments in September

1997. In addition the Court ordered costs to be paid by Pictor either by

agreement or upon Taxation (a process that is conducted through another

court hearing.)

Chudy's saga with Pictor started in 1988 when he signed two separate 5 year

contracts with the agency covering different sets of photographs (his own

and those jointly owned with his ex-partner). In the agreement sales were

to be reported on the first day of the month after the month in which they

were made. According to the contract the photographers commission were to

be paid 90 days after the sales report was submitted.

    (Editors Note: In this type of agreement commissions are paid to the

    photographer even if the agency has still not collected from the client. Of

    course, if the agency collects from the client in 30 days they get to

    legally hold the money for another two months before paying the photographer

    his share. This is a common method of paying commissions among European

    agencies. In the U.S. the common practice is to pay photographers after the

    fee has been collected by the client. The date when the sale was booked has

    no relation to when the photographer will be paid.)

In the first year after Chudy signed his contract payments ranged from being

a few days to a month-and-a-half late. By 1990 Chudy discovered that a

pattern had been established and Pictor was not prepared to make regular

payments. He had to constantly call the agent to remind them that monies

had not been paid. Despite these calls, the length of time between the

reported sales and the actual payment for these sales stretched out longer

and longer until by late 1993 payments were being made to Chudy almost a

full year after the sales were booked.

At this point Chudy had lost total confidence in Pictor and he and his

ex-partner formally declared that his contract had been breached. They also

requested return of all Master Copies Transparencies that were being held

for safekeeping by Pictor.

Pictor's initial agreed to make the photographs ready for collection, but

upon notice of impending collection Pictor issued a statement banning free

access to Chudy, his ex-partner or their representatives to their premises.

Pictor ceased all payments to Chudy in late 1993, but continued to license

rights to the photographs, and to irregularly send sales reports. When

Chudy filed suit on April 12, 1996 Pictor ceased sending sales reports.

It then took a year-and-a-half of legal maneuvering, paperwork and research

on Chudy's part before the case was finally heard.

Through the legal discovery process Chudy was able to determine that Pictor

and its sub-agents had invoiced clients for a total of £259,619.99 to

use his photographs between May 1993 and July 29, 1997. Chudy had several

different agreements with the agent beginning as early as 1988 and his

commission ranged from 12.5% to 50% depending on 'joint or sole ownership,'

the size of the dupes and catalog placement.

By the time of the trial Pictor had made no attempt whatsoever to effect

payment (normally made by bank debit) for a period of approximately four


Chudy's claim was for half of the photographer share of sales made between

May 1993 and July 29, 1997. Chudy's share has now been paid, but no payment

has been made to his ex-partner. Chudy's view is that Pictor is separately

liable with respect to his ex-partner as "primary" copyright holder on all

the photographs in question, not least by virtue to sole copyright on all

the art-work which was ever used. Artists copyrights are more stringently

protected under English law than those pertaining to photography. Chudy

understand that Pictor has taken no action to resolve the outstanding claim

of his ex-partner.

As stated earlier, Pictor agreed to return the photographs of Chudy and his

ex-partner in 1993, but they only began to return photographs in the summer

of 1998. To date 35% of these photographs have still not been returned.

Chudy believes that none of the transparencies would have been returned had

it not been for assistance from the Association of Photographers in London

who collected the transparencies from Pictor and witnessed the detailed

contents of those packages which were supplied without inventories.

Pictor may have continued to make sales of Chudy/ex-partner's photographs

since 7/29/97 without the provision of full and proper accounts. No further

payments have been made.

Chudy claims to have seen evidence of additional uses in the U.S. and other

countries which have either never appeared on any of Pictor's sales reports,

or which appear to have been accounted for incorrectly.

In one case Uniphoto acknowledges that a cover use was made in the U.S. by

Bio-Mechanics Magazine. However, they apparently refuse to try to collect

for the usage because the magazine has since been sold by the previous

owners and Uniphoto does not want to irritate the new owners who are regular


Pictor is the parent of Uniphoto/Pictor which is headquartered in

Washington, DC and has offices in New York and Los Angeles.

New Action

According to English law plaintiffs in such cases are allowed to act as

their own lawyers. This is called "Litigants in Person". It is not unusual

for such persons to appear in the County Courts. At the discretion of the

Judge, a Litigant in person may receive the assistance of a "Mckenzie

friend" (who may be a qualified lawyer) on the day of the trial.

This is much the same as the small claims system works in the U.S. except

that this case was for a much larger amount of money and the legal issues

were much more complex.

Plaintiffs who act as "Litigants in Person" in the UK, and who win their

case, are usually entitled to collect reasonable fees for the time they

spent in preparing their case.

Chudy spent hundreds of hours during a period of more than six months

collating and analyzing the figures he was able to obtain with the aid of

the court's discovery process.

In order to collect these monies another hearing (the Taxation hearing) is

necessary and Chudy is in the process of preparing for that hearing which is

now set for the end of April 1999. Chudy cautions that it is necessary to

be extremely patient when litigating and it should be the last resort. He

say, "It should never have been necessary to take matters to court. There

was no defense in the end. This whole thing has been an appalling waste of

the Court's and everyone's time."



I am represented by Uniphoto/PICTOR and have had problems collecting payments from

them. I have had a friendly and personal relationship with the management since

I signed with them but with this news, the slowness of payments to me and other second

(and third hand) conversations about slow payments I am VERY WORRIED.

If any other Uniphoto photographers have anything to add to this...

Copyright © 1999 Jim Pickerell. The above article may not be copied, reproduced, excerpted or distributed in any manner without written permission from the author. All requests should be submitted to Selling Stock at 10319 Westlake Drive, Suite 162, Bethesda, MD 20817, phone 301-461-7627, e-mail: wvz@fpcubgbf.pbz

Jim Pickerell is founder of, an online newsletter that publishes daily. He is also available for personal telephone consultations on pricing and other matters related to stock photography. He occasionally acts as an expert witness on matters related to stock photography. For his current curriculum vitae go to:  


Be the first to comment below.

Post Comment

Please log in or create an account to post comments.

Stay Connected

Sign up to receive email notification when new stories are posted.

Follow Us

Free Stuff

Stock Photo Pricing: The Future
In the last two years I have written a lot about stock photo pricing and its downward slide. If you have time over the holidays you may want to review some of these stories as you plan your strategy ...
Read More
Future Of Stock Photography
If you’re a photographer that counts on the licensing of stock images to provide a portion of your annual income the following are a few stories you should read. In the past decade stock photography ...
Read More
Blockchain Stories
The opening session at this year’s CEPIC Congress in Berlin on May 30, 2018 is entitled “Can Blockchain be applied to the Photo Industry?” For those who would like to know more about the existing blo...
Read More
2017 Stories Worth Reviewing
The following are links to some 2017 and early 2018 stories that might be worth reviewing as we move into the new year.
Read More
Stories Related To Stock Photo Pricing
The following are links to stories that deal with stock photo pricing trends. Probably the biggest problem the industry has faced in recent years has been the steady decline in prices for the use of ...
Read More
Stock Photo Prices: The Future
This story is FREE. Feel free to pass it along to anyone interested in licensing their work as stock photography. On October 23rd at the DMLA 2017 Conference in New York there will be a panel discuss...
Read More
Important Stock Photo Industry Issues
Here are links to recent stories that deal with three major issues for the stock photo industry – Revenue Growth Potential, Setting Bottom Line On Pricing and Future Production Sources.
Read More
Recent Stories – Summer 2016
If you’ve been shooting all summer and haven’t had time to keep up with your reading here are links to a few stories you might want to check out as we move into the fall. To begin, be sure to complet...
Read More
Corbis Acquisition by VCG/Getty Images
This story provides links to several stories that relate to the Visual China Group (VCG) acquisition of Corbis and the role Getty Images has been assigned in the transfer of Corbis assets to the Gett...
Read More
Finding The Right Image
Many think search will be solved with better Metadata. While metadata is important, there are limits to how far it can take the customer toward finding the right piece of content. This story provides...
Read More

More from Free Stuff