Copyright Legalities

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?

mari2222

The ECHR does not directly change the law in Member States, but courts will take its rulings into account if asked to judge similar cases. Public bodies must also take account of its rulings when formulating their policies and practices.

3DataModem

Paulw wrote: »

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.

I'm not trying to convince you, i'm trying to help the OP get what they want.

But if you are curious, there certianly is precedent for Data Protection overriding a claim of copyright. Nothing concrete to hand IRO photographs though.

AnCatDubh

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.

Sorry.

3DataModem

Paulw wrote: »

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

This definitely makes NO difference. They 'hold' and 'control' the data irespective of copyright and as such come under the DPA.

mari2222

A recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has found that taking a photograph without consent constitutes a breach of an individual's privacy even if that photograph is never published.

The facts concerned a photograph of a newborn Greek baby taken in 1997 in a hospital sterile unit without consent by professional photographers as part of a photography service offered to clients. The parents of the baby objected and asked for the negatives to be handed over to them. The hospital refused and the parents brought an action against the hospital unsuccessfully in the Greek courts. The parents appealed to the ECHR in December 2004 on the basis that their child's right to privacy and a private life had been breached under Article eight.

In finding for the parents, the ECHR states that 'the concept of a private life was broad and encompassed the right to identity'. It stressed that 'a person's image revealed his or her unique characteristics' and this was one of the main attributes of personality. The ECHR confirmed that the right to control image depended not only on consent when the picture was taken, but also when it came to possible publication. Here, the hospital did not get permission from the parents to take the photographs nor to keep the negatives, which could possibly be used at a later date against the wishes of the individuals concerned. As such the child's privacy and right to protect his private life were breached.

The photographs here would also constitute personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998, as the data subject was clearly identifiable. However, 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.

However, this decision emphasises again the need for the media to ensure that they have appropriate permissions before publishing and obtaining photographs of individuals, especially in a situation when an individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy and a photograph clearly identifies the individual and therefore engages their Article eight right to a private life and also to control their image.

For more information, visit the European Court of Human Rights website.

234

As others have pointed out ECHR (not EU) rulings are almost irrelevnat here in Ireland. Our government is notoriously bad at implementing ECHR rulings and the court will take account of them to a limited extent. So the law as it stands here is what is relevant to the situation described. You would have to lobby the government to change the law if it was in any way non-compliant with the ECHR, but ECHR has no immediate effect without government action.

mari2222

I presume a professional body would not condone its members acting against the principles laid down by the ECHR.

magicbastarder

angelfire9 wrote: »

I only want ONE picture

if everyone else photographed that night wanted ONE picture, he'd either a) have to give away every photo he took that night in full res, or b) provide everyone with a print at no cost.
either option is career suicide.

234

mari2222 wrote: »

I presume a professional body would not condone its members acting against the principles laid down by the ECHR.

Well the Dail regularly ignores the ECHR. Admittedly they are not profeesionals of a very high standard.