Photo Copyright (kinda) question

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

ozymandius

Just read the other thread on Legal Discussions. Utterly exhausting. And despite all the fluff about ECHR the key point in that finding was conveniently overlooked -

... not all photographs taken in a public are necessarily protected unless an individual is very clearly identifiable and there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and there is no public interest.

In fact, according to another finding by the ECHR (2004, Princess Caroline of Monaco), even if there is a Public Interest there exists for public persons a 'portable sphere of privacy', unless at a public event, etc.

Anyway, this topic has nothing to do with privacy - it's about retaining ownership to one's IP and Copyright Law protects that.

jaybeeveedub

and ECHR decisions are not binding on Irish courts, they must merely take judicial notice of decisions, and where possible construe measures in accordance with the convention....

so not much more persuasive than the UK courts.....

robertbarry

The subject has rights. The photogragh can not be used commercially without a model release being signed and in some instances a property release must be signed.

robertbarry

It depends on the subject really and the law applicable in various jurisdictions

melekalikimaka

robertbarry wrote: »

The subject has rights.

only an issue where defamation or slander might become an issue tbh. the subject doesnt really have that many rights after that.

Paulw

robertbarry wrote: »

It depends on the subject really and the law applicable in various jurisdictions

The jurisdiction is Ireland. The images were taken at an event. The images are being used on the event website.

The photographer is in the US.

So, considering all that, I can't see the OP having any case at all, and the photographer has absolutely 0 obligation to provide an image.

The subject is definitely not being defamed.