Reminder Secure

Photographers and the Obsession with Copyright

This thread is being watched by 1 person
11 February 2014 07:47
ATVLONDON
Photographer


@Magpie.  As far as I'm aware everything she does is legit regarding the paying of taxes etc.  However, I'm not nosey enough to start questioning her about her personal details as I am not affected by them and she seems to be getting lots of recommendations for her work.
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.


11 February 2014 07:58
paule
Photographer


If the business model works for her fine... you can include images with a package without losing copyright, most people just want to be able to share with family and friends.. which imho, is fine..

The issue may come if one of her clients enters one of her photos into a competition, posts on a magazine site, uploads them to a stock site or if they are uber enough: used by commercial media providers of any description..

Will she then be happy that her photos have been used, without any recognition?


Neil Anderson is off-line
11 February 2014 08:10
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Location
United Kingdom
London
West London

Quote from magpie1
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.




Copyright is hers to do with as she likes.
Yours is a argument similar to 'home taping is killing music' - did that do the music industry any good? No, because it was palpable rubbish. People paid for a LP or CD and then weren't able to make a legitimate tape copy to play in their car or a mixtape. Meanwhile the record companies were paying millions in marketing to get their music played on the radio. And so when MP3s came along they didn't look again at how to get the public to pay them, but hid their heads in the sand.
You would have to sell very few photos to have time to spend your time policing them. If you try to enforce your copyright over a facebook mum, what do you achieve? If a court were to award you damages they would be based on your loss... which would be 50p, £5 or nothing ?? In this case it's almost certainly better to make a virtue out of necessity.
Like any dealer he was watching for the card that is so high and wild he'll never need to deal another...


Neil Anderson is off-line
11 February 2014 08:14
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Location
United Kingdom
London
West London

Quote from paule
If the business model works for her fine... you can include images with a package without losing copyright, most people just want to be able to share with family and friends.. which imho, is fine..

The issue may come if one of her clients enters one of her photos into a competition, posts on a magazine site, uploads them to a stock site or if they are uber enough: used by commercial media providers of any description..

Will she then be happy that her photos have been used, without any recognition?




Why would she care ? She's competing against uncles and sisters and photo machines, not against Bailey

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


RGBphoto is off-lineSilver Member
11 February 2014 08:26
magpie1
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Tyne and Wear
Newcastle

No not an argument similar to "home taping" apart from the copyright erosion the 'Dutch Auction' principal of ever descending charges comes into play, if somebody offers what she does for £55, then does she come down to £50, then its £45, then £40-----?


Neil Anderson is off-line
11 February 2014 08:46
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Location
United Kingdom
London
West London

Quote from magpie1
No not an argument similar to "home taping" apart from the copyright erosion the 'Dutch Auction' principal of ever descending charges comes into play, if somebody offers what she does for £55, then does she come down to £50, then its £45, then £40-----?



Paying as little as possible for everything is the way things work now. The reason that editors used to pay reasonable rates for photos, is the same reason workers across industry used to get paid regular wages, with pensions and other 'red tape'(ie no zero hour contracts, no unpaid interns, unfair dismissal laws etc) because Unions were strong enough to stand up to the greed of the captains of industry. Whilst poor people's wages have to be driven down to make them work harder, the people at the top won't get out of bed unless they get obscene amounts of money.
I'm saying your attitude is as dinosaur-like as the music industry's response to MP3s, because things change. Eventually the music business learnt how to make money out of downloading (although only after Apple had sewn up the opportunity). Today people who have a studio shoot want to treat the results like pics they took themselves, so the people who offer that product will gain customers.

Personally I don't have time or inclination to police my photos. It's my right to give them away if I want to, and where I do, I normally give a license for people to do what they like as long as their use/abuse is not for direct commercial gain.
Like any dealer he was watching for the card that is so high and wild he'll never need to deal another...


11 February 2014 08:59
ATVLONDON
Photographer


Blimey, for once I actually agree with Stolen on something. Makes me want to post more on here now. Happy Days
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.


Steven Jardine is off-linePlatinum Member
11 February 2014 09:02
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Location
United Kingdom
Buckinghamshire
Stoke Mandeville

Quote from magpie1
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.



Don't talk RedChecker is a naughty person .

There are many highly successful commercial photographers out there who've made, and still make a good career out of getting paid simply to take photos for their client to do with them as they please.  It's only successful photographers who bleat on about erosion of copyright as if a perfect legal solution will bring them the gravy train (which it won't).

It's high time copyright laws were re-written anyway as too much legal weight is given to the photographer anyway with little care for other co-creators of a piece of work.  The law is also outdated regarding the need to allow redistribution/republication for web/social media services, often the source of confusion with photographers thinking that the likes of Facebook are stealing their image.
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.


Neil Anderson is off-line
11 February 2014 09:28
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Location
United Kingdom
London
West London

Quote from ATVLONDON
Blimey, for once I actually agree with Stolen on something. Makes me want to post more on here now. Happy Days



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


Simon Young is off-lineSilver Member
11 February 2014 13:15
Allinthemind
Photographer
Allinthemind
Location
United Kingdom
Gloucestershire


Quote from RedChecker
 Photographers are generally far too precious with their images especially when they have little commercial value beyond the money made on the initial shoot.



I agree! Also, there are many commissioners that insist on assignment of copyright. It's a job, if someone wants to pay me £500 a day to photoggraph something they tell me to on the condition that I assign copyright.  So be it.

If I'm photographing something for myself that may have a wide appeal and potantial value, then that is different.  Often I see the attitude oif the second applied to the first scenario.  Before someone says, Yes, I am familiar with copyright and licensing usage etc.

Si

In the "Information Age", continued ignorance must be a choice motivated initially through inherited beliefs.



31 Users currently online   Blue=Models Orange=Photographers Red=Agencies Purple=MUA/Stylists Grey=Studios Green=Moderators
fashion29 ladysextasy maria_dyl Rae_raven sofiarae Winterlilly Wonderlandsherellex Xgreeneyesx
antoinewynn bengie Davebu dirkus gordon guitarman gwentman Hazy James7799 Jayp1 jccj1 Jph1954 Ladiesman MIB ownimage panda49 PhotoSpyroS poah Rhadamanthus Thechriss Thunder_Photos tms Zuiko