Copyright Legalities

angelfire9

My husband's photograph is being used on a certain website to promote an annual public event
The event is a profit making venture
The photographer who took the photos will not let us have a copy

What is the story legally here?
Does a person not have some legal right to their own image??

Not according to the photographers on boards
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056234906

Surely every tom dick or harry with a camera doesn't have the right to take photos of anyone and everyone without the consent of the subject and the photographer retains copyright??

Paulw

angelfire9 wrote: »

My husband's photograph is being used on a certain website to promote an annual public event
The event is a profit making venture

This is not the information you posted in the photography section of boards, and does have a drastic change to your query.

But, the photographer does still retain copyright and has no obligation to give you a print of the photo.

not even wrong

angelfire9 wrote: »

What is the story legally here?
Does a person not have some legal right to their own image??

The photographer created the image and therefore owns the copyright outright.

You could look into the area of "personality rights" which gives you certain rights to prevent commercial exploitation of any photo taken of yourself -- this is independent of copyright. However this is more for the area of misrepresentation (e.g. I take a photo of Brian O'Driscoll on the street and put it in ads for my energy drink to imply he endorses it; he has no comeback under copyright law but he still has personality rights to his own image) so will probably not help you get an extra copy.

Why can't you just right click->Save As anyway?

angelfire9

Paulw wrote: »

This is not the information you posted in the photography section of boards, and does have a drastic change to your query.

But, the photographer does still retain copyright and has no obligation to give you a print of the photo.

I didn't think it would make a difference sorry

not even wrong wrote: »

The photographer created the image and therefore owns the copyright outright.

You could look into the area of "personality rights" which gives you certain rights to prevent commercial exploitation of any photo taken of yourself -- this is independent of copyright. However this is more for the area of misrepresentation (e.g. I take a photo of Brian O'Driscoll on the street and put it in ads for my energy drink to imply he endorses it; he has no comeback under copyright law but he still has personality rights to his own image) so will probably not help you get an extra copy.

Why can't you just right click->Save As anyway?

Can't right click & save because its a slideshow on the website rather than an individual jpeg

I just can't get why the photographer won't give us a copy of a single bloody picture of my husband that we liked & wanted to frame :mad:

Paulw

angelfire9 wrote: »

I didn't think it would make a difference sorry

It actually makes a massive difference.

angelfire9 wrote: »

Can't right click & save because its a slideshow on the website rather than an individual jpeg

I just can't get why the photographer won't give us a copy of a single bloody picture of my husband that we liked & wanted to frame :mad:

Right click and save, would actually be a breach of copyright, which the photographer can then take civil action against you for.

He probably won't give you one because it costs him - time, paper, ink, postage, etc.

Why not offer to buy a print of the image from the photographer?

MagicSean

Can you really use someone's image to advertise an event without their consent?

mari2222

suggest you write to the photographer and state you are withdrawing consent to any publicisation of your image.

angelfire9

k_mac wrote: »

Can you really use someone's image to advertise an event without their consent?

Amazing isn't it? :cool:

Paulw wrote: »

It actually makes a massive difference.

Right click and save, would actually be a breach of copyright, which the photographer can then take civil action against you for.

He probably won't give you one because it costs him - time, paper, ink, postage, etc.

Why not offer to buy a print of the image from the photographer?

Ok what is the massive difference?
I don't get it

As for paying for the photo I wanted a digital copy not a print so that I could get it put on a canvass
How much realistically is it going to "cost" him to email me a digital copy of a picture??

Paulw

angelfire9 wrote: »

Ok what is the massive difference?

It makes a difference in how the image may be used. The image should not be used for advertising.

angelfire9 wrote: »

As for paying for the photo I wanted a digital copy not a print so that I could get it put on a canvass
How much realistically is it going to "cost" him to email me a digital copy of a picture??

As a photographer, I would charge a lot more for a digital image than I would for a print. This is due to having less control over how the image can then be used. You have to consider other costs a photographer has - equipment, insurance, transport, etc

So, again, I would agree with the photographer, and I wouldn't give you a digital image.

not even wrong

angelfire9 wrote: »

Can't right click & save because its a slideshow on the website rather than an individual jpeg

Flash decompiler.

Paulw wrote: »

Right click and save, would actually be a breach of copyright, which the photographer can then take civil action against you for.

Except the odds of being sued for saving an image off a public website for personal private use are exactly zero. For a start, the photographer has no way of knowing it's happened.

WIZE

take a print screen then paste into paint and save as jpeg

angelfire9

Paulw wrote: »

It makes a difference in how the image may be used. The image should not be used for advertising.

As a photographer, I would charge a lot more for a digital image than I would for a print. This is due to having less control over how the image can then be used. You have to consider other costs a photographer has - equipment, insurance, transport, etc

So, again, I would agree with the photographer, and I wouldn't give you a digital image.

The photographer was paid by the event organisers to take photographs at the 2010 event for use on the website to advertise their 2011 event
He most probably took 100's of pictures of which about 100 are on the website

His costs "equipment, insurance, transport etc" are paid for over the course of a years business in the case of equipment probably more than 1 year

All I want is ONE digital photograph of my husband for the purposes of mounting it via canvass at our home

I still don't see why
A) He has a problem with this
Why I should pay for it

Presumably my husband has the right to ask for the picture to be removed from the site? Or does the photographer's right to advertise his services supersede my husband's right to privacy?




By the way are there any legal eagles able to definitively comment on this??

Paulw

angelfire9 wrote: »

I still don't see why
A) He has a problem with this
Why I should pay for it

Presumably my husband has the right to ask for the picture to be removed from the site?

By the way are there any legal eagles able to definitively comment on this??

To answer the last question first - legal advice is not permitted, as per the forum charter.

He has a problem with it due to loss of potential revenue, and loss of control over his copyright work (the image).

You should pay because the photographer owns the copyright, and has a right to charge for his work.

Your husband can request the photo to be removed from the site. But, that too will depend on the circumstances of how/where the image were taken. It's not clear cut black and white.

Even if the image is removed from the website, you still won't get anywhere with the photographer.

angelfire9

Paulw wrote: »

To answer the last question first - legal advice is not permitted, as per the forum charter.

He has a problem with it due to loss of potential revenue, and loss of control over his copyright work (the image).

You should pay because the photographer owns the copyright, and has a right to charge for his work.

Your husband can request the photo to be removed from the site. But, that too will depend on the circumstances of how/where the image were taken. It's not clear cut black and white.

Even if the image is removed from the website, you still won't get anywhere with the photographer.

I am aware of the charter and am not seeking legal advice is not like i'd actually go to the bother of suing anyone over this
I am looking for a legal opinion there is a difference

As a photographer you are obviously entitled to your opinion that does not mean that i have to agree with it :rolleyes:

mari2222

googled this:



Secret filming in a public place can in principle be unlawful. Photographers must be aware that this could result in successful claims for damages. The practise of secret filming raises serious issues around liability for common law breach of confidence.

The photographer will have to show that any interference with individual privacy rights was no more than was necessary and could not reasonably have been avoided by e.g. asking the individual for consent. The privacy rights of the individual are present prior to any broadcasting or future ‘embarrassment ‘ that may occur.

Paulw

mari2222 wrote: »

googled this:

Secret filming in a public place can in principle be unlawful. Photographers must be aware that this could result in successful claims for damages. The practise of secret filming raises serious issues around liability for common law breach of confidence.

The photographer will have to show that any interference with individual privacy rights was no more than was necessary and could not reasonably have been avoided by e.g. asking the individual for consent. The privacy rights of the individual are present prior to any broadcasting or future ‘embarrassment ‘ that may occur.

What jurisdiction does this google article apply to? Certainly doesn't seem to apply in Ireland, since there is no specific direct right to privacy in a public area.

I'm not aware of any case-law in Ireland for liability for common law breach of confidence against a photographer for taking a photo in public.

Different rights apply in different countries. France, for example, is very strict on person privacy rights, while Ireland is not.

Also, from the sound of things, the photographer was not "secretly filming" but was overtly taking photos.

angelfire9

What about Data Protection?
From http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/A_guide_to_your_rights_-_Plain_English_Version/858.htm

You have the right to data protection when your details are:

held on a computer;
held on paper or other manual form as part of a filing system; and
made up of photographs or video recordings of your image or recordings of your voice.

Paulw

angelfire9 wrote: »

What about Data Protection?
From http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/A_guide_to_your_rights_-_Plain_English_Version/858.htm

So, how would you apply Data Protection to this situation?

It would still not give you a right to a digital copy that you can use to print on canvas.

angelfire9

Conversely I don't see what gives a photographer the right to use a person's image to promote a business and event without their permission

We are going round in circles....

mari2222

an EU court on human rights has declared that taking someone's photo can violate their privacy. In the past, laws in Europe have said that you can't necessarily publish a photo of someone without their permission, but merely taking the photo was allowed. No longer. In the press release about the decision, the court explained its reasoning:

"The Court reiterated that the concept of private life was a broad one which encompassed the right to identity. It stressed that a person's image revealed his or her unique characteristics and constituted one of the chief attributes of his or her personality. The Court added that effective protection of the right to control one's image presupposed, in the present circumstances, obtaining the consent of the person concerned when the picture was being taken and not just when it came to possible publication."

Paulw

angelfire9 wrote: »

Conversely I don't see what gives a photographer the right to use a person's image to promote a business and event without their permission.

I have never stated that I believe that the photographer has the right to use the image to promote a business. However, the photographer isn't using the image, the business is. It is up to the business to ensure it has the correct releases to use the image.

But, there is still no reason at all why the photographer should give you a free digital copy of the image.

mari2222 wrote: »

an EU court on human rights has declared that taking someone's photo can violate their privacy.

While this is an EU court view, it has not been passed in Irish law. Irish law does not currently see privacy in the same way.

angelfire9

Paulw wrote: »

But, there is still no reason at all why the photographer should give you a free digital copy of the image.

mmmm.... because he is making money from the publication of an image which he did not obtain a release for??:rolleyes:

234

mari2222 wrote: »

an EU court on human rights

Do you mean the European Court of Human Rights?

angelfire9

Weepsie wrote: »

if it was as you say a picture taken at an event, the terms and conditions of you entering the event probably state that pictures may be taken for promotional use or some such. Is it possible that the event promoters in fact own the image having paid for it and you could contact them?

It wasn't a competition so I doubt those kind of T's & C's apply
More along the lines of attending a concert or taking part in a Paddy's Day parade

Anyway I have contacted the organisation on who's website I saw the pic so we'll see what they say

jhegarty

Paulw wrote: »

So, how would you apply Data Protection to this situation?

It would still not give you a right to a digital copy that you can use to print on canvas.

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Accessing_Your_Personal_Information/14.htm

"Under Section 4 of the Data Protection Acts, you also have a right to get a copy of your personal information. This applies to all types of information -for example, written details about you held electronically or on paper, photographs and CCTV images. You are also entitled to know where the information was obtained, how it has been used and if it has been passed on to anyone else. "

PCPhoto

Hold on a second ..... I might be wrong here but ..... whats wrong with paying the photographer for the image ?

The law (as I understand and know it) - as a full-time working professional press photographer.

(in simple english)
if you are in a public place - you can be photographed
(everyone has a bloody camera these days...and theres loads of CCTV around too so you are practically always caught on camera)

OP.... would you expect the photographer to give you a copy of the photograph if you owned a pet pig who had won an award at a local fair ? ...... would you expect to get a digital copy of the image to do what you wanted with the image ?

if the image was used to advertise the "local fair" the following year - would you be proud that your pet pig's image was used or would you demand the image be removed ?

very similar scenario .... completely different way of looking at it ..... Personally I think you should just pay the photographer IF you want a copy of the image..... why not goto the "event" again this year and take the same photograph yourself ...problem solved !!! ...you can create the same image without the cost of purchasing one from someone who has probably spent thousands on equipment, learning etc etc.

melekalikimaka

jhegarty wrote: »

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Accessing_Your_Personal_Information/14.htm

"Under Section 4 of the Data Protection Acts, you also have a right to get a copy of your personal information. This applies to all types of information -for example, written details about you held electronically or on paper, photographs and CCTV images. You are also entitled to know where the information was obtained, how it has been used and if it has been passed on to anyone else. "

if you went down this road, you would probably get a low res watermarked version, you wont get the original file.

I don' think your grasping the whole issue of the photographers legal rights. You seem to have no value on the role of the photographer and feel entitled to the fruits of his labour because you want a photo and dont want to pay for it...

Max Power1

melekalikimaka wrote: »

if you went down this road, you would probably get a low res watermarked version, you wont get the original file.

I don' think your grasping the whole issue of the photographers legal rights. You seem to have no value on the role of the photographer and feel entitled to the fruits of his labour because you want a photo and dont want to pay for it...

When the OP is the subject of the photo I think he is entitled to feel such a way.

melekalikimaka

Max Power1 wrote: »

When the OP is the subject of the photo I think he is entitled to feel such a way.

not at all i disagree completely. Having studied photography law, and photography ethics in college, i personally feel the op has an issue with self entitlement, not uncommon these days, if you want the photo you pay for it, end of, no two ways about it.

angelfire9

melekalikimaka wrote: »

if you went down this road, you would probably get a low res watermarked version, you wont get the original file.

I don' think your grasping the whole issue of the photographers legal rights. You seem to have no value on the role of the photographer and feel entitled to the fruits of his labour because you want a photo and dont want to pay for it...

Not necessarily I just don't see why he should expect payment from me for a photograph that he has already been paid for when he didn't even ask the subject of the photo if he minded the pic being taken!

Max Power1

melekalikimaka wrote: »

not at all i disagree completely. Having studied photography law, and photography ethics in college, i personally feel the op has an issue with self entitlement, not uncommon these days, if you want the photo you pay for it, end of, no two ways about it.

That is, without any offence intended, a ridiculous statement imo.

That means that someone walking down the street could theoretically take my photo and use the image, without my consent, to promote a non profit making organization to which I would be ethically opposed (Catholicism for instance.)

I call bologne. You cant just walk around taking pictures of people willy-nilly and use their image as you deem fit!

@ OP I hope this works out for you and you get the copy of the photo that you wanted. Perhaps the Data Protection avenue would be a good one to pursue.

melekalikimaka

angelfire9 wrote: »

Not necessarily I just don't see why he should expect payment from me for a photograph that he has already been paid for when he didn't even ask the subject of the photo if he minded the pic being taken!

photographers sell their images many times over. have you considered that perhaps the photographer in contract with the event signed over the copyright to his employer, if so he would be able to issue you with a copy, even if he wanted to

melekalikimaka

Max Power1 wrote: »

That is, without any offence intended, a ridiculous statement imo.

That means that someone walking down the street could theoretically take my photo and use the image, without my consent, to promote a non profit making organization to which I would be ethically opposed (Catholicism for instance.)

I call bologne. You cant just walk around taking pictures of people willy-nilly and use their image as you deem fit!

@ OP I hope this works out for you and you get the copy of the photo that you wanted. Perhaps the Data Protection avenue would be a good one to pursue.

In this case, she will need to pay if she wants it, she wont get the image for free if the photographer does not feel inclined, which judging by attitude, i'm not suprised

unless stipulated in written contract the photographer ALWAYS retains full copyright of any images taken.

Paulw

angelfire9 wrote: »

It wasn't a competition so I doubt those kind of T's & C's apply
More along the lines of attending a concert or taking part in a Paddy's Day parade

Anyway I have contacted the organisation on who's website I saw the pic so we'll see what they say

If you attend a concert or event - there are generally terms and conditions for entry. These tend to be stated on the back of the ticket, or refer you to a website with full details. Many also have a clause stating that you may be photographed.

The organisation only have the power to not use the image. They have no ability to give you a copy of the image, since the photographer owns the copyright to the image. They have simply licensed use of that image.

jhegarty wrote: »

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Accessing_Your_Personal_Information/14.htm

"Under Section 4 of the Data Protection Acts, you also have a right to get a copy of your personal information. This applies to all types of information -for example, written details about you held electronically or on paper, photographs and CCTV images. You are also entitled to know where the information was obtained, how it has been used and if it has been passed on to anyone else. "

Yes, under that, an image must be provided, however, the photographer has no obligation under this to give you an image of resolution that may be used to print on canvas. He would probably give you the lowest possible resolution file he could, and he would still be in compliance with the law.

So far, we've established that your husband was photographed. Nothing you can do about that. The image is being used to advertise some event - you may have recourse to stop them using the image as advertisement (but you also may not, depending on the terms and conditions). You want a copy of the image, for free, which the photographer is well within his rights to say no to.



Seriously, if you want a copy of the image - offer to buy a copy, or ask the photographer how much it would cost to get the image printed on canvas, as you want anyway.

angelfire9

Just to clarify my position

I saw my husband's photo on a website promoting an event
The website credited the photographs to a particular photographer
The photographer got paid for the photos by the event's "owners" so therefore he made a profit on his day's photography

I want a copy of 1 photo in order to get it printed on canvass ONCE so that it can hang on the wall in our sitting room in our private residence

But seemingly the photographer is more entitled to the image than the person who's image it is
Seemingly the photographer is entitled to get paid for the image TWICE but the subject of the photo isn't even entitled to a digital copy of it

This seems utterly ridiculous to me


When we got married we had a wedding album produced by our photographer when the physical album was destroyed in our house fire the photographer gave us a disk with all the photos on it in High Res for us to get a new album done with whatever pics we wanted
And he gave us the disk for free because he said he'd already been paid for the work once

What is the difference??

Paulw

angelfire9 wrote: »

Just to clarify my position

I saw my husband's photo on a website promoting an event
The website credited the photographs to a particular photographer
The photographer got paid for the photos by the event's "owners" so therefore he made a profit on his day's photography

I want a copy of 1 photo in order to get it printed on canvass ONCE so that it can hang on the wall in our sitting room in our private residence

But seemingly the photographer is more entitled to the image than the person who's image it is
Seemingly the photographer is entitled to get paid for the image TWICE but the subject of the photo isn't even entitled to a digital copy of it

This seems utterly ridiculous to me


When we got married ...
And he gave us the disk for free because he said he'd already been paid for the work once

What is the difference??

Yep, you've grasped the situation.

The difference, your wedding photographer decided to give you the images, by choice. He had no obligation to. Many wedding photographers do this now, but it's down to each photographer.

I took a photo last weekend. Kinda been talked about a lot this week. I sold that same image to 9 newspapers, 3 websites and some other organisations. So, for that one photo, I've been paid a good number of times.

Since I own the copyright, I have the legal right to sell the image to as many or as few as I wish. I have no legal obligation to sell/give it to anyone (including the two gentlemen in the photo).

If those in the photo wanted the image for free, I might give it to them. Not because they are in it, not because I have already been paid, but because I choose to, but that would also depend on how they asked.

But, if they envoked the Data Protection Act, I would give them a very low resolution jpg of the image, which I would watermark, effectively making it useless to them, but I would still be fully compliant with the Data Protection Act.

So far, from all the posts, you seem to have ignored the fact that the photographer owns the copyright and there is not a single law that will compel him to give you the image, for free, of quality enough to print the image on canvas.

PCPhoto

Max Power1 wrote: »

That is, without any offence intended, a ridiculous statement imo.

That means that someone walking down the street could theoretically take my photo and use the image, without my consent, to promote a non profit making organization to which I would be ethically opposed (Catholicism for instance.)

I call bologne. You cant just walk around taking pictures of people willy-nilly and use their image as you deem fit!

@ OP I hope this works out for you and you get the copy of the photo that you wanted. Perhaps the Data Protection avenue would be a good one to pursue.

Anyone and EVERYONE can be photographed on a public street/place in Ireland .... the image cannot be sold to make a profit without consent of the person in the image (assuming the person is identifiable)

The image in this case is not being sold - it is being used to showcase the "event" and as such the person in the image has no recourse in the Irish courts system.

Any image taken by a photographer is the copyright of the photographer any unauthorised usage of the image could/should result in legal action taken by the photographer.

OP - Photographers are like any other business - struggling at the moment - why would the photographer want to give you a digital copy of an image which you want .... how can it benefit the photographer ??

Photographers at events make money on aftersales - this is when people see an image taken at the event and wish to purchase it because they like the image, the fact that the photographer got paid for doing the event is between the organisers and the photographer

- chances are the photographer did the job cheap so he/she could get some money from aftersales in order to make the day cover for itself....more and more photographers are doing jobs for cheap (sometimes free) and devaluing the profession.

angelfire9

Paulw wrote: »

Yep, you've grasped the situation.

The difference, your wedding photographer decided to give you the images, by choice. He had no obligation to. Many wedding photographers do this now, but it's down to each photographer.

I took a photo last weekend. Kinda been talked about a lot this week. I sold that same image to 9 newspapers, 3 websites and some other organisations. So, for that one photo, I've been paid a good number of times.

Since I own the copyright, I have the legal right to sell the image to as many or as few as I wish. I have no legal obligation to sell/give it to anyone (including the two gentlemen in the photo).

If those in the photo wanted the image for free, I might give it to them. Not because they are in it, not because I have already been paid, but because I choose to, but that would also depend on how they asked.

But, if they envoked the Data Protection Act, I would give them a very low resolution jpg of the image, which I would watermark, effectively making it useless to them, but I would still be fully compliant with the Data Protection Act.

So far, from all the posts, you seem to have ignored the fact that the photographer owns the copyright and there is not a single law that will compel him to give you the image, for free, of quality enough to print the image on canvas.

There is one word in your reply that I find telling "compel"

"There is not a single law that will compel him"

Whatever happened to common courtesy or decency

I honestly feel that making a profit out of someone else's image and then telling the person to take a running jump when they ask for a copy of the photo for personal use to be the lowest of the low

Paulw

angelfire9 wrote: »

There is one word in your reply that I find telling "compel"

"There is not a single law that will compel him"

Whatever happened to common courtesy or decency

I honestly feel that making a profit out of someone else's image and then telling the person to take a running jump when they ask for a copy of the photo for personal use to be the lowest of the low

It's called business. The photographer has to make money somehow, and he clearly doesn't want to just give his work away.

If every photographer gave images away for "common courtesy or decency", then they would very quickly be out of business.

Again, it may go back to exactly how you asked for the image in the first place. But, I would never give someone a high resolution image for free, and I doubt many photographers would.

I think you're finally understanding what your legal rights are. So, if you want the image, you will just have to buy it from the photographer, or else do without.

PCPhoto

angelfire9 wrote: »

Just to clarify my position

I saw my husband's photo on a website promoting an event
The website credited the photographs to a particular photographer
The photographer got paid for the photos by the event's "owners" so therefore he made a profit on his day's photography

I want a copy of 1 photo in order to get it printed on canvass ONCE so that it can hang on the wall in our sitting room in our private residence

But seemingly the photographer is more entitled to the image than the person who's image it is
Seemingly the photographer is entitled to get paid for the image TWICE but the subject of the photo isn't even entitled to a digital copy of it

This seems utterly ridiculous to me


When we got married we had a wedding album produced by our photographer when the physical album was destroyed in our house fire the photographer gave us a disk with all the photos on it in High Res for us to get a new album done with whatever pics we wanted
And he gave us the disk for free because he said he'd already been paid for the work once

What is the difference??

you really dont seem to look at the other side - despite what almost EVERYONE else is saying:

The photographer owns the copyright - he/she has the right to sell the image to whomever they want.

the MAIN difference between the wedding photographer situation and this is :
the wedding photographer was working for you ...the guy at the "event" was not working for you and has absolutely no obligation to you.

Proper wedding photographers (who have been doing the job for years) wont allow their work to be given away - you must have gotten a good deal on your wedding photographs (and not hired a full-time professional wedding photographer).... these days there are lots of people doing cheap "wedding packages" and most of the time the couple don't know the difference between a professional and someone who's good at taking photos and making money from it.....everyone with a digital camera considers themselves to be professional.

I have sold the copyright on some images in the past €500 per image .... the images were fairly worthless to me but I was asked to do a job and they wanted copyright of the images ...so I said... €500 per image - how many images do you want ?

PCPhoto

Paulw wrote: »

It's called business. The photographer has to make money somehow, and he clearly doesn't want to just give his work away.

If every photographer gave images away for "common courtesy or decency", then they would very quickly be out of business.

Again, it may go back to exactly how you asked for the image in the first place. But, I would never give someone a high resolution image for free, and I doubt many photographers would.

I think you're finally understanding what your legal rights are. So, if you want the image, you will just have to buy it from the photographer, or else do without.

or goto the same place and take/set up the same image as the photographer... and hey presto ... you have your very own copy of the image that you wanted and didn't have to pay the nasty photographer !!!

(apologies if that comes across as condescending - its purely meant as sarcasm)

melekalikimaka

s-e-l-f e-n-t-i-t-l-e-m-e-n-t

it may seem crazy that the law is in favour of the person who took the photo and not the person standing there doing absolutely nothing with no public liabilty insurence, no 4k camera, no macbook pro and no source of income other than photography, and the brass neck of him to sell this work he created...more than once, he's either one sly mofo...or utilising the fruits of his labour to benifit him most... :eek:

angelfire9

PCPhoto wrote: »

you really dont seem to look at the other side - despite what almost EVERYONE else is saying:

The photographer owns the copyright - he/she has the right to sell the image to whomever they want.

the MAIN difference between the wedding photographer situation and this is :
the wedding photographer was working for you ...the guy at the "event" was not working for you and has absolutely no obligation to you.

Proper wedding photographers (who have been doing the job for years) wont allow their work to be given away - you must have gotten a good deal on your wedding photographs (and not hired a full-time professional wedding photographer).... these days there are lots of people doing cheap "wedding packages" and most of the time the couple don't know the difference between a professional and someone who's good at taking photos and making money from it.....everyone with a digital camera considers themselves to be professional.

I have sold the copyright on some images in the past €500 per image .... the images were fairly worthless to me but I was asked to do a job and they wanted copyright of the images ...so I said... €500 per image - how many images do you want ?

I had a proper professional photographer
A member of the Irish professional photographer's association with a Licentiateship in wedding photography (to quote his website)

Maybe i was lucky to get a photographer who is a decent human being who understood that I was devastated by the loss of our wedding album & particular photos taken on our wedding day

I only want ONE picture
I'd happily pay him to put it on canvass himself but he doesn't have the facilities
I asked him if he would be willing to order it on canvass for me (online or through photoworld) and i'd pay for it but seemingly it would demeen his profession

Paulw

angelfire9 wrote: »

I only want ONE picture
I'd happily pay him to put it on canvass himself but he doesn't have the facilities
I asked him if he would be willing to order it on canvass for me (online or through photoworld) and i'd pay for it but seemingly it would demeen his profession

Sounds like a very weird photographer. I don't know of any other photographers would would act like that. Most would gladly get the image printed on canvas for you, once a fee was agreed.

But, unfortunately for you, that's life, and there is nothing you can do. The photographer owns the copyright and ultimately has the right to decide how the image may or may not be used.

angelfire9

Paulw wrote: »

Sounds like a very weird photographer. I don't know of any other photographers would would act like that. Most would gladly get the image printed on canvas for you, once a fee was agreed.

But, unfortunately for you, that's life, and there is nothing you can do. The photographer owns the copyright and ultimately has the right to decide how the image may or may not be used.

I've a feeling this dope is not a professional because he spent

"time and effort removing red eyes from pictures as well as editing out unneccessary background features and in some cases producing the pictures in sepia and black & white to get the effect that was desired for particular shots"

Further more get this

"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"

I remove red eyes from pics & print some of them in Sepia and B&W does that make me a pro?

3DataModem

If you really really want it, contact the company who ran the event. Tell them you would really like a copy for your own use.

If they refuse, or tell you to contact the photographer, tell them you will follow up with them with a formal request under the DPA so they might as well say yes now.

Always better going to the user rather than the photographer, good chance of getting a nicely finished image without a watermark. If you get a watermarked version, there are good ways of removing it if all you want is a canvas print.

Paulw

Pro or not, doesn't change the fact that he owns the copyright.

Out of curiosity, what event/website is the image used on? PM if you like.

Paulw

3DataModem wrote: »

If you really really want it, contact the company who ran the event. Tell them you would really like a copy for your own use.

If they refuse, or tell you to contact the photographer, tell them you will follow up with them with a formal request under the DPA so they might as well say yes now.

Always better going to the user rather than the photographer, good chance of getting a nicely finished image without a watermark. If you get a watermarked version, there are good ways of removing it if all you want is a canvas print.

The company using it, even under the DPA, has no obligation to provide you with the image. They must refer you to the copyright holder, the photographer. In fact, if they did provide the OP with a copy, they would be in breach of copyright.

Also, removal of any watermark, to print the image, would be a breach of copyright.

Printing an image to canvas would require a fairly high quality image. Normally am image for use on a website would not be of good enough quality to print on canvas, and any "copy" of such an image would be even worse looking when printed on canvas.

3DataModem

Paulw wrote: »

The company using it, even under the DPA, has no obligation to provide you with the image. They must refer you to the copyright holder, the photographer. In fact, if they did provide the OP with a copy, they would be in breach of copyright.

Also, removal of any watermark, to print the image, would be a breach of copyright.

Printing an image to canvas would require a fairly high quality image. Normally am image for use on a website would not be of good enough quality to print on canvas, and any "copy" of such an image would be even worse looking when printed on canvas.

That not true. You are not asking for the photographer's data, you are asking for the website-owners data. Their data controller must provide you with what they have and where they obtained it, not refer you to the source of the data.

You also have a solid argument for getting the best res available AND unedited, as more-res = more data. E.g. there may be something in the image which is not clear in a lower res or watermarked version. They cannot watermark the bit you want (i.e. husband) as this is distorting HIS personal data, so you can probably demand the unedited version (i.e. whatever they have on file).

Don't be fobbed off to the photographer. It is the website and / or event organiser you should target... they have the image, your husband is clearly identifiable, you are entitled to a copy.

(PS Websites have other, specific, rules (different to print) as they are transmitted outside the EU.)

Paulw

The website doesn't own the data (the photo), they simply have a license to display the image (which the photographer owns).

Most likely, the photographer simply provided the website with an image good enough for web use (800px wide, 96 ppi), which would not be near quality enough to print large on canvas. In fact, the image they have may even be much smaller than that.

I'd love to see any caselaw you have which states that the website/company can override the copyright which the photographer owns, and can then give you a copy of his image.

angelfire9

I googled the photographer he's a yank
And the site is hosted in the US

Does that make a difference?