Reminder Secure

Photographers and the Obsession with Copyright

This thread is being watched by 1 person
11 February 2014 03:37
ATVLONDON
Photographer


I've noticed a few threads on other sites whereby Photographers are complaining about copyright issues and how their watermarks are being removed by models using them on their portfolios.  I just wanted to mention a young lady I know who photographs mainly babies and young children at her home studio.  She is very busy and her success is due to the fact that she takes about 40 images, places them on a CD for the customers to print and manipulate as much as they want.  She doesn't care how many copies they make or what they do to them.  She has made the money she wants from each sitting.  She charges about £60 for an hour sitting.  I couldn't believe it when she told me she doesn't have any issue with the images being used anywhere else.
My doctor told me I've only got 6 months to live. Then I told him I couldn't pay him... so he gave me another 6 months.


RealityImaging is off-line
11 February 2014 03:46
RealityImaging
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Worcestershire


That's fine. They are still her copyright. Interesting to think that what if her images ended up on some pervy website for kiddy fiddlers if she wouldn't care what happened to them?


Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
11 February 2014 04:19
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

She's made her money and is happy with that, and if that business model works why should she shoot herself in the foot with potential future customers by being an RedChecker is a naughty person regarding enforcing her right as copyright owner.

Photographers are generally far too precious with their images especially when they have little commercial value beyond the money made on the initial shoot.
When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.


Chrissie Red is off-line
11 February 2014 05:15
Chrissie_Red
Model
Chrissie_Red
Location
United Kingdom
Tayside
Perthshire

Quote from RedChecker
She's made her money and is happy with that, and if that business model works why should she shoot herself in the foot with potential future customers by being an Chrissie_Red is a naughty person regarding enforcing her right as copyright owner. Photographers are generally far too precious with their images especially when they have little commercial value beyond the money made on the initial shoot.




Agree with that, I mean generally those who go away and edit the Chrissie_Red is a naughty person out of the images probably wont really understand/respect the photographer enough to credit them anyway. If the photographer has made her money and she is happy with what she is making then great stuff, personally I probably would be quite similar to her. I wouldn't be precious over images which mean very little to me - if its standard boring studio stuff of people that mean nothing to me then it wouldn't bother me at all.

Might be different if it was a concept I had spent a great deal of time or money doing - but thats a little different. I can understand people being Chrissie_Red is a naughty person ed off if those images were taken and used commercially.


KHV is off-line
11 February 2014 05:44
Keltica
Photographer
Keltica
Location
United Kingdom
London
London

Thanks for sharing that but if I punched you in the face, YOU might think that's OK but it's still an offense in law, and that's what we have to hammer home, like piracy, it's ILLEGAL and being so, photographers and others who producer work must have protection under law.



redbaron is off-lineSilver Member
11 February 2014 05:49
redbaron
Photographer
redbaron
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

If it works for her fine, clearly she knows the value of her work. I agree with the sentiment about copyright but it seems to me it is those who do it for a hobby who get the most irate over that. Besides she is not surrendering copyright. Merely giving them 'full rights' usage.
Photography and Studio hire www.immortaleye.co.uk


Profile Pictures is off-line
11 February 2014 05:58
profilepictures
Photographer
profilepictures
Location
United Kingdom
Suffolk
Bury St Edmunds

The law is the law, and each to their own in relation to this ladies business. For me, I appreciate my stuff might never get anywhere in financial and popularity terms, but nonetheless, its mine and isn't made in a glib or superficial manner; however anyone else sees it, if I make a picture of a person, its a sincere attempt to show them as well as I can and my interpretation of what will make them look great. I only give out stuff I'm personally pleased and proud of and perceive that's how I want the picture to look. It isn't open to further interpretation or alteration from that point on and rightly or wrongly, I'll throw a helluva hissy fit if someone is rude enough to start fooling with my pictures.

The closest emotional response I can equate this feeling to, is having offered a sincere and thoughtful gift, to be told the recipient doesn't like it.


Neil Anderson is off-line
11 February 2014 06:31
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Location
United Kingdom
London
West London

Quote from Keltica
Thanks for sharing that but if I punched you in the face, YOU might think that's OK but it's still an offense in law, and that's what we have to hammer home, like piracy, it's ILLEGAL and being so, photographers and others who producer work must have protection under law.





As described it doesn't sound illegal at all. She seems to have granted a license to the purchasers, although it is possible that she has actually transferred the copyright in the contract she has with her client, or maybe she just chooses not to enforce her rights. If she let's the clients know that she will not enforce her rights before the contract is entered into, it may be that non-enforcement is an implied term of the contract.
Normally 'illegal' is used in connection with breaking the criminal law. Hitting someone in the face is a criminal offence. The creator of a work has certain rights, which they can enforce in the courts, but it is not a criminal offence to ignore those rights.
From the story (as told) it sounds a very sensible commercial approach to the modern world, where the clients she is working with are worth more as repeat customers than attempting to sell them more products from each session. It is never going to be worth suing them for misuse.


Like any dealer he was watching for the card that is so high and wild he'll never need to deal another...


Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
11 February 2014 07:10
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

Quote from Keltica
Thanks for sharing that but if I punched you in the face, YOU might think that's OK but it's still an offense in law, and that's what we have to hammer home, like piracy, it's ILLEGAL and being so, photographers and others who producer work must have protection under law.



It's only illegal if you chose, as copyright owner to assert your rights.

However, if you'd been contracted to do a specific job in which you gave out the digital versions of the images, unless you'd agreed otherwise in a contract it would probably be fair to assume that your client can subsequently do as they pretty much please with the images.  I very much doubt a court would be sympathetic to your crusade if you subsequently went after one of your clients based on asserting your copyright simply because you weren't happy that you struck the best deal you could.
When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. All of your pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you are stupid.


RGBphoto is off-lineSilver Member
11 February 2014 07:33
magpie1
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Tyne and Wear
Newcastle

The full story of the quoted 'young lady' in the original post does not mention anything about business issues such as tax, liability insurance, house insurance informed for running a business from it etc.etc. one presumes these issues have been addressed and everything is legitimate, if the business is an additional income then the pricing and business policy appear to be just £60 for a package that brings her in some money and no worries afterwards, maybe if a dissatisfied customer, makes a complaint to Trading Standards things might be different?
But the relinquishing of copyright etc. devalues the entire process for everyone and the approach is one of the reasons why its easier for copyright eroding legislation to be proceeded with and buyers such as press agencies drive fees down.



9 Users currently online   Blue=Models Orange=Photographers Red=Agencies Purple=MUA/Stylists Grey=Studios Green=Moderators
toniallcorn
andyritchie aprilscherz3 FirstLifePhotography Fluffypup George99 martinchristie minolta photofrank