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 arsehole 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.
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.KelticaThanks 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.
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.
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.magpie1The 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.
Why would she care ? She's competing against uncles and sisters and photo machines, not against BaileypauleIf 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?