Photo Copyright (kinda) question

angelfire9

I happened to be browsing a website and came across a photograph of my OH that is published on said website (without express permission)
Now I don't have, nor does my OH, any problem with them publishing a photograph that was taken in a public setting

However, I contacted the photographer who "owns the copyright" of the images on the site to ask for a copy of the photo as it was a nice pic and I wanted a copy and he refused

How can he own copyright of a photo of someone else??????

Paulw

angelfire9 wrote: »

How can he own copyright of a photo of someone else??????

He owns the copyright because he took the photo. It doesn't matter what is in the photo (place, person, object), it's simply the fact that he created the photo and hence owns the copyright.

angelfire9

Paulw wrote: »

He owns the copyright because he took the photo. It doesn't matter what is in the photo (place, person, object), it's simply the fact that he created the photo and hence owns the copyright.

Ok
But does the subject of the photo have no rights to it at all?

melekalikimaka

angelfire9 wrote: »

Ok
But does the subject of the photo have no rights to it at all?

nope

Paulw

angelfire9 wrote: »

Ok
But does the subject of the photo have no rights to it at all?

The person in the photo would have minimal rights, more related to commercial usage (advertising, etc)

It will also depend on where in the world the image was taken.

angelfire9

melekalikimaka wrote: »

nope

ok

To the professional photographers here then may i ask if you took a photo of someone would you let the subject of the pic have a copy if they asked for it??

Paulw

angelfire9 wrote: »

ok

To the professional photographers here then may i ask if you took a photo of someone would you let the subject of the pic have a copy if they asked for it??

I'd certainly be willing to sell them a print of the photo.

melekalikimaka

angelfire9 wrote: »

ok

To the professional photographers here then may i ask if you took a photo of someone would you let the subject of the pic have a copy if they asked for it??

again... nope

Squidgy Black

Not a free copy no.

You hardly walk into a photography studio and ask for a free picture, just because it was out in public makes no difference.

angelfire9

stetyrrell wrote: »

Not a free copy no.

You hardly walk into a photography studio and ask for a free picture, just because it was out in public makes no difference.

But if you were in a studio you'd be REQUESTING a photograph be taken of you, you'd pose for it and obviously pay for it

this was a picture taken without consent (implied or otherwise) why should a photographer be allowed to use a picture of a person on a website promoting an event & promoting the photographer yet the subject of the photo has no rights and accrues no benefit not even a simple copy of the print)

Paulw

angelfire9 wrote: »

this was a picture taken without consent (implied or otherwise) why should a photographer be allowed to use a picture of a person on a website promoting an event & promoting the photographer yet the subject of the photo has no rights and accrues no benefit not even a simple copy of the print)

Consent doesn't need to be implied or otherwise for a photo to be taken. A photo can be taken illegally and the photographer would still retain copyright. But, the permitted usage of such an image would be drastically limited.

The usage of the image still does not entitle you to a copy.

You may have rights, under the Data Protection Act, which you may be able to envoke to limit how the image is used (advertising should only be permitted with expressed consent, a model release).

But, again, if you want a print of the photo, why not offer to buy a print???

Squidgy Black

angelfire9 wrote: »

But if you were in a studio you'd be REQUESTING a photograph be taken of you, you'd pose for it and obviously pay for it

this was a picture taken without consent (implied or otherwise) why should a photographer be allowed to use a picture of a person on a website promoting an event & promoting the photographer yet the subject of the photo has no rights and accrues no benefit not even a simple copy of the print)

You don't need permission to take a picture of someone, no matter where it was taken.

The only reason they'd need consent or a model release is if they were selling the photo, or using it a publication like a magazine.

That's just the law and the way it works. Check out street photography, it's just candid shots of unsuspecting victims who haven't got a clue

angelfire9

stetyrrell wrote: »

You don't need permission to take a picture of someone, no matter where it was taken.

The only reason they'd need consent or a model release is if they were selling the photo, or using it a publication like a magazine.

That's just the law and the way it works. Check out street photography, it's just candid shots of unsuspecting victims who haven't got a clue

Is publishing it to a website not the same as a print publication like a magazine?

I mean legally in things like actions for libel it has been taken that publishing information on the web is legally equivalent to print media

twowheelsonly

I understand the legalities of the situation but I think that it's a bit mean spirited of the photographer not to give them a copy.
In what context is the photo on the website btw?? Is it being used to promote the photographers work?

Paulw

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I understand the legalities of the situation but I think that it's a bit mean spirited of the photographer not to give them a copy.

On the legal discussion section on boards, the OP actually wants the digital copy (high-res) of the image, to make a canvas print.

I'm not surprised the photographer said no.

twowheelsonly

Paulw wrote: »

On the legal discussion section on boards, the OP actually wants the digital copy (high-res) of the image, to make a canvas print.

I'm not surprised the photographer said no.

In that case then the photog is probably right.
Surprised he didn't offer a 7 x 5 print or something along those lines though. Something too small to successfully enlarge but enough to keep the OP happy.

magicbastarder

angelfire9 wrote: »

Is publishing it to a website not the same as a print publication like a magazine?

depends on what context it's used in on the website; if the photo is used to sell a service, it would require a release form from anyone recognisable in the shot.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

depends on what context it's used in on the website; if the photo is used to sell a service, it would require a release form from anyone recognisable in the shot.

I don't agree. Every photo on my website is being used to sell a service (ie; me as a photographer) but I certainly haven't got anyone's permission and wouldn't seek it.


I think it only is required for usage in a public place or if money is being made from it (Stock site, etc. who would sell it on to be used in a public manner).

challengemaster

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I understand the legalities of the situation but I think that it's a bit mean spirited of the photographer not to give them a copy.

Think about what you're saying there...

It's mean for the Photographer, who spends time and money on photography, not to give away a free copy of a photo he took to one of the few people that might have some interest in buying the photo.



Op: the photographer owns the copyright, and can do whatever he wants with it for personal use. His own website also counts as personal use. Releases are only really required where the copyright or licencing will be passed on afaik.

melekalikimaka

over in legal discussions she was getting all sorts of funky advice, good read tho

challengemaster

melekalikimaka wrote: »

over in legal discussions she was getting all sorts of funky advice, good read tho

I saw...

Love how the suggestion from legal advice forum was to steal (printscreen) the photo. :rolleyes:

CabanSail

Have just read the companion thread to this over on Legal Discussion.

What I cannot get is how the OP feels they are entitled to this image because the Photographer may have already been paid. To apply the same logic it would mean an Author only gets paid for the First Edition of a book. They have then been paid so any further re-prints should then be for free.


The Privacy Legislation quoted seems to hinge on images taken of babies in a Hospital. That is not a Public Place and is somewhere that one would expect privacy. I very much doubt that would have any affect on matters raised here.

jaybeeveedub

angelfire9 wrote: »

Is publishing it to a website not the same as a print publication like a magazine?

I mean legally in things like actions for libel it has been taken that publishing information on the web is legally equivalent to print media

that's more of a term of art in that context...

hand gestures also count as "publishing" in the sense you're discussing!!

magicbastarder

the only grey point i can see here is whether the photo being hosted on a site which seems to be promoting the event would constitute commercial use of your likeness. i don't think there's been any clarity on whether there was any clause on the ticket, or whether such a use would fall outside the normal use case requiring release forms.

TelePaul

I don't really view this as a legal issue, but more as that of a moral quandary. I think the 'decent' thing to do would be to send or make available to the OP a print - as the op seems unwilling to purchase one, there's no real loss of revenue potential. Furthermore, furnishing the op with a digital copy is not the same as passing a loaded gun to a child - I don't think anyone who tries to 'Save As...' a flash image poses any real threat in this regard. A more common-sense approach is needed IMO.

These arguments aside, I think the hard-line attitude of certain photographers (not referring to Boardsies here) is itself indicative of a culture of entitlement. On the face of it, Irish Copyright Law is somewhat counter-intuitive in this regard, and I think there's a propensity for photographers to not only champion this law, but also to parade it in the face of the unknowing. What's that old adage about catching more flies with honey? I think the same applies here.

Paulw

So, a photographer should just give away high-res digital images to anyone who asks?

And photographers shouldn't insist on their copyright rights?

Fair enough if you put no value on your own photography, but some of us do try to make some money from it.

I see no reason why the OP is entitled to a digital copy of the image. But, I also see no good reason as to why the photographer wasn't prepared to sell the OP a canvas print of the image itself.

smelltheglove

If I was the photographer I would offer a low res watermarked image or a 4x6 at most! There's nothing in it to benefit the photographer, only take up his time!

If the image is on a site for say an annual event, I would not see that as an ad, mire of a documentary purpose, I mean photos of kids at St Patricks day parade would not be assumed to be advertising the parade right?

If the op is looking to have a canvas printed then why not request this from the photographer? I don't get the problem here, surely the photographer would be happy to make a few bob unexpectedly and maybe even offer a discount, there is no way I would release a high res for this purpose though! I like to be confident that my work is displayed well rather than on the cheapest print and canvas possible!

PopeBuckfastXVI

smelltheglove wrote: »

If the op is looking to have a canvas printed then why not request this from the photographer? I don't get the problem here, surely the photographer would be happy to make a few bob unexpectedly and maybe even offer a discount

According to the other thread the OP asked for that, from the photographers reply it seems that the picture of the OP's OH was cropped out of a high res image, and doesn't have sufficient resolution to make a large print.

CabanSail

If you read the other thread, then the photographer has implied that the image is an extreme crop and would only be good for a small print or web use.

TelePaul

Paulw wrote: »

So, a photographer should just give away high-res digital images to anyone who asks?

No. Who said that?

Paulw wrote: »

And photographers shouldn't insist on their copyright rights?

Again, no.

Paulw wrote: »

Fair enough if you put no value on your own photography, but some of us do try to make some money from it.

Power to you brother. I actually put quite a good deal of value on my own work, it's just not all fiscal. I'd actually be quite perturbed if my interest in photography developed to a point where I was forced to exercise my legal rights to protect my endeavours.

Paulw wrote: »

I see no reason why the OP is entitled to a digital copy of the image. But, I also see no good reason as to why the photographer wasn't prepared to sell the OP a canvas print of the image itself.

I believe this is known as a lose-lose situation. A little education and empathy goes a long way.

smelltheglove

I have read the other thread and I am quite shocked that in the legal forum there was advice to break the copyright law. (even if you did at 4x6 you probably would get little more than a blurry pixellated shot)

OP it is the photographers decision not to furnish you with any form of this image, it is his decision to make and you can do little but accept it. I would only assume that as was mentioned the quality of the image probably isnt good enough and he would not be comfortable supplying it to you.

Just because your OH is in it gives you no right to it or its copyright, I sincerely doubt it is being used as advertisement at all but more likely in a documentary state. I'm afraid you may have hit a wall here.

komodosp

I an see the legal reason for it - every sports photographer would have to be giving away free pictures to people in the crowd, and roller-coasters would go out of business, not to mention parazzi.

But, FFS, assuming it's an isolated incident, he could have just given her a copy in the interest of niceness. I suppose he was holding out hoping that she would buy it...

My advice would be to take a photo of him in an embarassing position and send it to the tabloids... I'm sure they could come up with a decent headline... "PSYCHO STALKER NOSE-PICKER WON'T GIVE PHOTO TO VICTIM!"

Necronomicon

komodosp wrote: »

But, FFS, assuming it's an isolated incident, he could have just given her a copy in the interest of niceness. I suppose he was holding out hoping that she would buy it...

Cruel bastard, trying to make a living. These scumbags should be locked up for life.

PCPhoto

komodosp wrote: »

I an see the legal reason for it - every sports photographer would have to be giving away free pictures to people in the crowd, and roller-coasters would go out of business, not to mention parazzi.

But, FFS, assuming it's an isolated incident, he could have just given her a copy in the interest of niceness. I suppose he was holding out hoping that she would buy it...

My advice would be to take a photo of him in an embarassing position and send it to the tabloids... I'm sure they could come up with a decent headline... "PSYCHO STALKER NOSE-PICKER WON'T GIVE PHOTO TO VICTIM!"

every incident of someone asking for a photo is an "isolated incident"

I get asked by each person individually .... I take photos of schoolboy soccer and almost every week a parent asks me I will email them on a copy, I tell them they can contact the paper if they want to get a copy.... sometimes they tell me ah shure its only an email .... to which I tell them.... you cant send the image without buying all the equipment, learning how to use it and then getting access to the internet adjusting the image and sending it.... so its not just an email !!

PopeBuckfastXVI

Funny thing is, I'd be way more inclined to give a photo to someone for free if the first thing they asked me was how much I wanted for it!

tororosso

PCPhoto wrote: »

every incident of someone asking for a photo is an "isolated incident"

I get asked by each person individually .... I take photos of schoolboy soccer and almost every week a parent asks me I will email them on a copy, I tell them they can contact the paper if they want to get a copy.... sometimes they tell me ah shure its only an email .... to which I tell them.... you cant send the image without buying all the equipment, learning how to use it and then getting access to the internet adjusting the image and sending it.... so its not just an email !!

Agreed PCPhoto, you would get sick of all this scabby nonsense from people. People believe that, just because there happens to be a modern medium of transmitting files instantly, they are entitled to it for nothing. Then when they are told they can't get what they want they throw their toys out of the pram.

All the queries back and forth in the two threads about ways of getting the photo for nothing are dumbfounding and petty. It's no different to somebody wanting to get a hold of the latest film release on DVD but refusing to pay for it and asking for ways to get it without parting with cash.

melekalikimaka

i think the real issue is the sense that good will is to some people something that is a given. I think most could agree he depending on circumstances and the situation, none of us would have an issue with giving out a free print to someone on occasion, provided you we given the courtousy and respect as a photographer you deserve. Its not something anyone should expect, especially from someone who is practicing as a professional.

TelePaul

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i think the real issue is the sense that good will is to some people something that is a given. I think most could agree he depending on circumstances and the situation, none of us would have an issue with giving out a free print to someone on occasion, provided you we given the courtousy and respect as a photographer you deserve. Its not something anyone should expect, especially from someone who is practicing as a professional.

I think it's something that should be dealt with on an individual basis. Without the subject, there is no photograph, after all. Again, I've noticed that photographers can be quite vitriolic when quoting laws and enforcing their rights, and in a great many cases it strikes me as overkill. And if you think you've got it bad, be thankful you're not a professional musician - the digital revolution has begun to impact both professions in the same way, though in the case of recorded music you'd have a far reduced means of protecting your intellectual property.

I'd extend the comparison by saying that if your product is desirable enough, people will always be willing to pay for it. If not, you need to rethink prices or your value proposition.

Edit: not 'you' as in melekalikimaka, 'you' as in 'one'

PCPhoto

Telepaul

I can sort of understand where you come from (saying photographers can be vitriolic when quoting laws and enforcing their rights).... but its because of the availability of digital photography that everyone considers photography to be easy.

The general public do not appreciate or value a photograph nowadays - even I myself earlier in the thread suggested to the OP that she go back to the place and recreate the image if she wants a copy of it so badly.

the vast majority of members of the public have a digital camera or have access to a digital camera, however from looking at various images on facebook - plenty of people have not mastered "Taking a photo"

After all the waffling above I guess my point is that since cameras are everywhere and photographers "work" is not being valued .... we only have the law to fall back on to protect our livelihood....the value of photographs has seriously diminished in the past 10years, if a photographer has to use the law to protect their work .... more power to them.

I know that in the next year or two after I launch a photography initiative (no set date to launch yet) I will vigorously fight for the photographers against the illegal usage of images.... legal cases will be taken for reproduction of images without permission on websites, blogs, newspapers, magazines etc.

TelePaul

PCPhoto wrote: »

Telepaul

I can sort of understand where you come from (saying photographers can be vitriolic when quoting laws and enforcing their rights).... but its because of the availability of digital photography that everyone considers photography to be easy.

The general public do not appreciate or value a photograph nowadays - even I myself earlier in the thread suggested to the OP that she go back to the place and recreate the image if she wants a copy of it so badly.

the vast majority of members of the public have a digital camera or have access to a digital camera, however from looking at various images on facebook - plenty of people have not mastered "Taking a photo"

After all the waffling above I guess my point is that since cameras are everywhere and photographers "work" is not being valued .... we only have the law to fall back on to protect our livelihood....the value of photographs has seriously diminished in the past 10years, if a photographer has to use the law to protect their work .... more power to them.

I know that in the next year or two after I launch a photography initiative (no set date to launch yet) I will vigorously fight for the photographers against the illegal usage of images.... legal cases will be taken for reproduction of images without permission on websites, blogs, newspapers, magazines etc.

I've no argument with any of that. I think digital is again to blame for the ubiquity of would-be photographers and the associated decline in standards - any idiot can buy a DSLR and set it to 'P', I'm living proof. I just don't think it's right to assume that the public either a) know copyright law like you or I do due to our vested interest in the subject or b) appreciate the artistry and skill behind a photograph; if you're a pro, it's up to you to sell them on both counts.

PCPhoto

but the reason professionals price their images is because they are telling the customer/client ...there is a value to my work.

Maybe the general public and businesses alike need to be told exactly what copyright means.... and that its wrong (illegal) to take someone's image from Flickr/Facebook/website/etc etc and do what you want with it.

sunny2004

This thread and the op attitude amazes me..

If the OP loves the image so much that they want to print the image on a canvas (as stated in the Legal thread) and proudly put it in their living room, then simply pay for the image...

I'm guessing and its just a guess, that your ill-informed replies here may of been part of your original request to the photographer, with these beliefs and thinking you are entitled to a free copy, any photographer would simple say, "BYE BYE " in their head...

In simple terms, any photographer who photographed anyone at an event I am sure would be willing to sell you a Hi-res file, its not as if anyone else is going to want it !

On a lighter note, it must be an amazing image to go to all this trouble, I wouldnt mind a copy of it for my wall

AnCatDubh

sunny2004 wrote: »

If the OP loves the image so much that they want to print the image on a canvas (as stated in the Legal thread) and proudly put it in their living room, then simply pay for the image...

It was a little hard to get to the bottom, but on the Legal Discussion thread, the OP did ask/offer to buy the image on canvas from the photographer, but the photographer wasn't obliging.

I took a guess at the nub of the problem and posted on the other thread:

Leaving everything else aside, in terms of the end product that you seek, there is something very telling in the photographers reply as quoted by you. Personally, I would suggest to forget about it and move along. You indicate they say;

The pictures I take are one off shots where the subject of the picture is more often than not unaware of my presence, these candid shots are ideal for websites or small 4x6 prints but unsuitable for larger reproductions such as the canvass you have suggested

Plus, you indicate that you have asked to get him to do the canvas (assuming he would be compensated for doing so), and he wouldn't bite. This is a little unusual as if he is depending on image sales for his livelihood.

Both the above points combined, and reading through the lines, he (presuming it is a he) is telling you here - he has snapped a wide scene and cropped the bejaysus out of it to come up with the image which your husband has become the subject of. You are down now to a technical level - something that will produce at most a 6x4 print or is suitable for web page usage only won't go (enlarge) to something that is going to hang proudly on your living room wall.

In simple terms, the available digital data which makes up the photograph won't "stretch" large enough to give a reasonable print.

I would humbly suggest that even if the law was on your side or if the decency of mankind was at play here and the photographer was willing to gift you the source image, that it still wouldn't be possible to get what you are seeking.

TelePaul

PCPhoto wrote: »

but the reason professionals price their images is because they are telling the customer/client ...there is a value to my work.

Well ultimately, consumers are going to decide what value, if any to attribute to a piece of work. I know in this case things are complicated by the fact that a high-res image isn't available from which to print, but it seems the Op doesn't value the picture enough to pay for a copy. Their call. However....

PCPhoto wrote: »

Maybe the general public and businesses alike need to be told exactly what copyright means.... and that its wrong (illegal) to take someone's image from Flickr/Facebook/website/etc etc and do what you want with it.

I would agree if it weren't for the fact that photography laws are so utterly counter-intuitive. You can take my picture and use my likeness for non-commercial endeavours, and I have no say in it. I can see why this appears so strange and unreasonable to the uninformed.

There was actually a really good article on this topic in a recent photo mag, I'll try dig it out later. A local paper published a picture without the consent of the photographer, and he enforced his right to intellectual property in a certain way that the paper believed to be heavy-handed - they paid the invoice he sent them and were adamant that they wouldn't be availing of his services in future due to his heavy-handed approach. A bit casual on their part maybe, but again, lose-lose.

TelePaul

Incidentally, if the photographer were to sell a print to the op, wouldn't this constitute commercial usage and therefore require the model's consent?

I've missed something glaringly obvious here.

magicbastarder

TelePaul wrote: »

they ... were adamant that they wouldn't be availing of his services in future due to his heavy-handed approach.

they don't sound like the sort of paper who would be particularly good or easy to work for to begin with.

CabanSail

You're right. You are missing something.

Paulw

TelePaul wrote: »

Incidentally, if the photographer were to sell a print to the op, wouldn't this constitute commercial usage and therefore require the model's consent?

No, limited edition prints are permitted. :rolleyes:

TelePaul

CabanSail wrote: »

You're right. You are missing something.

Care to elaborate? Or are we getting flippant now?

TelePaul

Paulw wrote: »

No, limited edition prints are permitted. :rolleyes:

Seems to be a bit of a grey area at best. To me at least, the op's confusion is becoming increasingly understandable.

melekalikimaka

art pieces / commisioned work/ commerical work/ one offs/ limited editions all seem to fall under different categories with regards copyright/VAT