Reminder Secure

Photographers and the Obsession with Copyright

This thread is being watched by 1 person
11 February 2014 13:43
Catuaba
Photographer


I think it comes down to personal preference, some artists don't ever upload or release anything, unless they've been paid and it's considered sold. There talent hides away in galleries or on hard drives.
For others uploading small versions of their art heavily watermarked is preferred. If I shot a full wedding and the client had paid, they would get full size images, no watermark and I couldn't care less what they did with them. But if someone stole an image uploaded and manipulated it to make the model look bad or change the setting then that's a different story, I would want to protect my work and the model as best I could.
If you do police your images then at the end of the day if something happens it comes down to one thing and one thing only, and that is who has the most money in the court room and the Versace suit. And even when you've won, they'd have won by emptying your wallet.


rmsoansphotography is off-line
11 February 2014 19:29
digimarx
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
London


Quote from ATVLONDON
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.



If the photographer has paid the model money for a shoot, what right do models have, in this meaning, "have their cake and eat it"? The photographer pays, the model wants more by wanting photos? If the model pays, the it is understandable that they would want photos for their portfolio


Iain Thomson is off-linePlatinum Member
12 February 2014 04:54
IainT
Photographer
IainT
Location
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire


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 IainT 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.



I have to agree. Generally the photographers who are most precious about heir images are the ones who,s images are worth nothing anyway.

If you hold the copyright of an image then you can dictate the terms of the licence and if enough money is on the table, that may include sighning away all rights to future sales and usage.

I think the photographer mentioned in the OP has a very sensible business model.
I tend to be a modest man, but then I do have a lot to be modest about.


12 February 2014 05:25
ATVLONDON
Photographer


Quite true Iain. She's not a wealthy woman but she's certainly earning more than me. I thought of doing it myself but my partner says she probably gets the work because she is female and is better looking than me.
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.


Peter Hague is off-line
12 February 2014 05:26
PeterH
Photographer
PeterH
Location
United Kingdom
South Yorkshire


Quote from Allinthemind
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.





Indeed, I'm photographing the interior of a newly refurbished shop for the owner, those pictures will have zero value to me beyond the initial sale, so the woman can do pretty much what she likes with them after that. Most commercial jobs fall into that category.

I retain copyright as a matter of course, but she can do what she likes, I'm not going to make any more money out of it.
"I am the one who knocks" - Walter White


Simon Young is off-lineSilver Member
12 February 2014 06:35
Allinthemind
Photographer
Allinthemind
Location
United Kingdom
Gloucestershire


Quote from PeterH
Indeed, I'm photographing the interior of a newly refurbished shop for the owner, those pictures will have zero value to me beyond the initial sale, so the woman can do pretty much what she likes with them after that. Most commercial jobs fall into that category.

I retain copyright as a matter of course, but she can do what she likes, I'm not going to make any more money out of it.



So do I Peter, as a matter of course, if they ask for it, I don't make a big deal about it and give it to them. If I think there may be some future value, I might suggest an eternal license or similar but I won't argue the point.

Si

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


Bob is off-linePlatinum Member
12 February 2014 07:17
Bob
Photographer
Bob
Location
United Kingdom
Devon
Honiton

Quote from Allinthemind
if they ask for it, I don't make a big deal about it and give it to them.


I don't make a big deal about it if a client requests copyright. I just educate those who don't know what the difference is between copyright and usage rights. Once this is explained most opt to go down the cheaper route and purchase the latter.

Not only is copyright the oil of our generation, to paraphrase Mark Getty, but it is currently also the birthright of our children and it should not be thrown away without fully thinking through the potential consequences.

Bob


Simon Young is off-lineSilver Member
12 February 2014 15:03
Allinthemind
Photographer
Allinthemind
Location
United Kingdom
Gloucestershire


Quote from Bob
I don't make a big deal about it if a client requests copyright. I just educate those who don't know what the difference is between copyright and usage rights. Once this is explained most opt to go down the cheaper route and purchase the latter.

Not only is copyright the oil of our generation, to paraphrase Mark Getty, but it is currently also the birthright of our children and it should not be thrown away without fully thinking through the potential consequences.

Bob



Well I hope you "Educate" them in a slightly less patronising way.  Also, if you are going to quote me (almost), quote the entire portion that's relevant.
If you choose to offer your shots cheaper via usage rights as compared to transfer of rights, that's entirely up to you. There is no right or wrong here. There is sometimes a value to the difference between the two, most often there is not.

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


Len Maynard is off-line
13 February 2014 11:10
Skid2
Photographer
Skid2
Location
United Kingdom
Cheshire
Stockport

I never used to watermark my images until I found my images being used on websites site which have never asked permission nor have they given me credit and had taken the images straight off my web site so they knew who the copyright was owned by.

After a couple of years and many emails I have got most to either removed them or given me credit. I am currently having a problem with a company in Cyprus.

It is not about money its about courtesy and good manners
"I never cared for fashion much, amusing little seams and witty little pleats: it was the girls I liked." - David Bailey


Bob is off-linePlatinum Member
14 February 2014 10:50
Bob
Photographer
Bob
Location
United Kingdom
Devon
Honiton

Quote from Allinthemind
Well I hope you "Educate" them in a slightly less patronising way.


Si, I usually initially point clients who need education on copyright matters in the direction of the Copyright 4 Clients FAQs. They usually thank me for doing so as that simple resource is very educational indeed.

Quote from Allinthemind
Also, if you are going to quote me (almost), quote the entire portion that's relevant.


In my opinion I was quoting the relevant portion rather than potentially confusing matters by quoting an entire post.

Quote from Allinthemind
If you choose to offer your shots cheaper via usage rights as compared to transfer of rights, that's entirely up to you.


Copyright transferal would most times severely limit my use of my own photographs, and lose me revenue, which is why I licence images for either single use or time limited use for certain purposes; e.g. One Year Non-Exclusive Marketing & Promotional Use with an option to extend the licence at a discounted rate.

Quote from Allinthemind
There is no right or wrong here. There is sometimes a value to the difference between the two, most often there is not.


I agree that there is no right or wrong which applies to every photographer or every image, but for use of non-commissioned images in an editorial or advertising context offering specific usage rights is usually more beneficial to the holder of First Copyright than offering a copyright transfer. However if shooting commissioned work which it is a fair bet that no other client would be interested in using, a long term transfer of copyright might be more beneficial. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, but educating clients and photographers on both the value of copyright and the reasons why the client usually does not need to acquire it could make all of our lives easier.

Bob 








3 Users currently online   Blue=Models Orange=Photographers Red=Agencies Purple=MUA/Stylists Grey=Studios Green=Moderators
celebrateeverymoment pinklilly
Musicman