[STOCKPHOTO] Copyright Infringement?
Fred Voetsch Publishing
--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, David Kilpatrick <
>
> If a client can look at a stock image,
> and see that it costs $1000, and realises that for $500 a local
> professional can produce much the same thing tomorrow, why
should they
> buy stock?
Paul Panayiotou Then Wrote:
>Copyright infringement would one good reason
To my knowledge that is a mistaken idea of copyright. You cannot
copyright a concept or an idea. For example, someone has produced an
image of a monkey in a business suit carrying a briefcase and I like
that idea and create a strikingly similar image. I am perfectly within
the law to do so. Only by actually reproducing someone elses
copyrighted work, i.e., copying the digital file, scanning it or
photographing it, would I be committing copyright infringement.
I imagine there might be some limitation to this; let's say you hired
the same monkey and rented the exact same suit briefcase and....
Fred Voetsch - Owner
http://AcclaimImages.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.cfm#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.cfm
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STOCKPHOTO-...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
kawyle
If you intentionally track the details of the original image, that's
copyright infringement. However, if it's only the general idea of a money
in a suit with a briefcase that you copy, that isn't infringement. And if
you have a strikingly similar image but can somehow show that you had no
access to the earlier image, that isn't infringement (whereas with patents,
it doesn't matter how you get to the point of similarity).
There are obviously some fuzzy areas between idea and how the idea is
executed....
Karen A. Wyle
Fred Voetsch Publishing
Terry Oakley Wrote:
>mind you 'fresh, new minds' don't crash and burn using (abusing?) this
>new
>found power!!
Point taken, but we have already and will again...crash, that is.
But is it so hard to get back up, dust yourself off and try again?
And yes, I do get a bit full of myself from time-to-time (well, okay,
USUALLY) but dare I walk into a brave new world without a sense of
daring and bravado? I think not.
Now, please, please, please, Terry Oakley (thanks to Bob #36 for that
hint about not just using first names), I am sure you are insulted by
my words here, but how..and why? Please, please, please (Bob Croxford
taught me that word - I LOVE IT) explain to my young and feeble mind
what I say that offends you so?
Now, Terry, it's all in fun....
I will try to stay off this forum for a few weeks while I concentrate
on network-upgrade matters and then just enjoying my family in Oregon
during the Christmas break. I dare say that I do appreciate ALL of the
exchanges here and hope to find everyone still posting their thoughts
for all to critique and ponder when I return. Even you, Bob (You're Bob
#1 in my book, Mr. Croxford). :-)
I very much appreciate this forum and all it has taught me in such a
short time.
With all sincerity, Thank You All and may everyone enjoy a Merry
Christmas.
Fred Voetsch
Fred Voetsch Publishing
Krishna Wrote:
>Is it not disadvantageous to allow
>others to be owners of our website name to be registered?
I strongly suggest you own the domain yourself. I use BulkRegister.com
but they're not for someone just starting out. Why not stick with
http://www.Netsol.com since they have lowered their prices quite a bit?
They are the standard and will be around in the future.
I now use strictly dedicated hosting and prefer ThePlanet and
Rackshack.net but have a suggestion for a starter account:
http://www.pair.com. They are outstanding and give a good value for the
dollar. They have been around for years and have been very stable.
BTW, for anyone wanting a large HD, ThePlanet.com has a 4-250gb RAID
array that gives you some 750gb of disk space as a single partition.
This is part of a dual xeon server with some 2 terabytes of bandwidth
per month. A photographer-nerds dream server! They offer CPanel so you
can easily cluster servers and services as you grow.
Best of luck!
Glenn Zumwalt
At 05:53 PM 12/13/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>To my knowledge that is a mistaken idea of copyright. You cannot copyright
>a concept or an idea.
>
Your knowledge is flawed. If you hire someone to copy an image with the
express idea of getting it cheaper it is an infringement. You are not
copying an Idea, you are copying an existing image. If you took the idea
and used a different animal, there would be no infringement.
_____________________
Glenn Zumwalt Fotografy
age, Alamy, SAA, EP
Fred Voetsch Publishing
Sean McCormick Wrote:
>My old employer, which is practically destitute, shows
>four times the traffic of my current employer, according to Alexis. My
>old employer made less than a million dollars this year. My current
>employer is on track for hitting a billion dollars in gross revenue
Poor guy, only a million? :-)
Yes, some of the busiest sites struggle to make money and as we saw,
many never made ANY money, but traffic is generally a good thing to
have if you know how to use it.
Wasn't it pets.com that had that sock-puppet and was very well-known
but they still went under? Bad management is bad management no matter
if you're online or off. I was experienced enough in business to
understand this from the start and in fact that is why I voraciously
consume the brains of experienced people like Bob Croxford; they have
much to offer but they often don't want to use their powers for the
good of us pesty newcomers.
A different example is Amazon.com which wallowed in red ink for years
but has become quite profitable over the past couple of years, if I'm
not mistaken.
I have a lot of general-type traffic of people who are looking for
photos so I have begun offering and featuring prints from our
"prettier" images. This has paid off nicely and has helped to diversify
the business into an area that was a natural extension of what we were
already doing with little extra cost or time involved. It will help to
finance further marketing of the stock photography as well as the
prints.
Let's keep in mind that good rankings from google are free. You then
just have to figure out how to turn the visitors into buyers but if you
build your pages the right way from the start you will get a good
percentage of people who are looking for what you are offering. It's a
good way to help start your business off right but I would not rely on
search engine traffic alone.
I actually think that a specialist would do better with search engine
traffic because most professional image buyers are not going to go to
Google unless they can't find what they need at their favorite stock
agency.
Fred Voetsch - Owner
http://AcclaimImages.com
Fred Voetsch Publishing
I've come across OzImages, http://ozimages.com.au/ a number of times
and noticed that at least one of the recent contributers here, Terry
Oakley, is affiliated with them.
Terry, I was hoping that you could offer some insight into this
operation from a seller's perspective. There are certain aspects of it
that really appeal to me such as the way photographers are much more
the center of the site rather than the stock.
I imagine their services might also be of interest to other
photographers here.
Some questions I have:
Do they produce good results for what they charge?
Is the system easy to use; to add, edit and remove images?
Are they fair in their representation of photographers?
Any comments, from Terry or others familiar with this operation would
be appreciated. I am not interested in selling through them but am
interested in new ways of doing business and this site seems to have
its own unique and rather attractive style.
Fred Voetsch
http://www.AcclaimImages.com
David Kilpatrick
Glenn Zumwalt wrote:
> At 05:53 PM 12/13/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>To my knowledge that is a mistaken idea of copyright. You cannot copyright
>>a concept or an idea.
>>
>>Fred Voetsch - Owner
>
>
> Your knowledge is flawed. If you hire someone to copy an image with the
> express idea of getting it cheaper it is an infringement. You are not
> copying an Idea, you are copying an existing image. If you took the idea
> and used a different animal, there would be no infringement.
>
However, if you are a client are you say to a designer, 'I want a photo
of a monkey in a business suit with a briefcase, see if you can find one
on-line' and the designer finds one, and it costs $3000 for the use, and
there happens to be a local part-time photographer whose main job is as
an organ-grinder and therefore has a monkey and can easily rustle up a
business suit...
Very often the idea for the photo is the designer's or client's concept,
and they look to stock agencies to find a match. If they do so, they are
lucky (it's surprisingly difficult). But if they find a match and it's
not quite what they want, they are not breaching any intellectual rights
by commissioning something similar which DOES meet their original brief.
David
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
Paul Panayiotou
'Original artistic work' is copyright protected and cannot be
copied nor imitated without the authority of the copyright owner.
For example Damon Hirst and his infamous giant cast of a toy
model is a copyright infringement (and I believe led to an
expensive out of court settlement?)
Copying also means making a 2D version of a 3D original and
vice versa.
In terms relating to photography, Intellectual Property solicitors
(lawyers) Simmons & Simmons in the UK advise:
"'To be 'original" the work need NOT be innovative or unique but
must be created by the author, using a certain amount of
independent skill or labour and must not be copied from another
work"
If someone creates work independently - without intent to copy -
than that is not copyright infringement.
Whilst you cannot copyright ideas nor facts, their expression (in
our case by means of a photograph) is protected.
Copyright is a very valuable asset and nobody should think they
can simply imitate a photograph because it is cheaper than
licensing the original!
David Kilpatrick you should perhaps reappraise your beliefs - as
a publisher you are skating on very thin ice!
Regards
Paul Panayiotou
--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, Glenn Zumwalt
<glenn.zumwalt@s...> wrote:
> At 05:53 PM 12/13/2004 -0800, you [Fred Voetsch] wrote:
> >To my knowledge that is a mistaken idea of copyright. You
cannot copyright
> >a concept or an idea.
> >
> >Fred Voetsch - Owner
>
> Your knowledge is flawed. If you hire someone to copy an
image with the
> express idea of getting it cheaper it is an infringement. You are
not
> copying an Idea, you are copying an existing image. If you took
the idea
> and used a different animal, there would be no infringement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Vaughn
Check out www.Zillionbucks.com . Owned by photographer David Riecks, a
frequent contributor to a number of photo-related internet lists.
Great service, great support. Lots of information on the website that will
answer your questions about registering domain names, etc.
- Greg
Gr...@GregVaughn.com
terry@picsource
Fred,
no offence taken at all.
just that quite a few newbies, expounding the latest theories of a 'brave
new world', have come and gone on this forum while many of the 'grey beards'
are still on board. the old photo and business principles hold just as true
with the new technologies as the old.
i applaud your vigour and enthusiasm, although not agreeing with all your
philosophy.
cheers to you, too, for the coming season.
Terry Oakley
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The Picture Source
Specialising in science, medical & technical images
PO Box 434
Ocean Grove. Vic. 3226
Australia
Phone & fax: (+61) 03 5255 2088
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
ABN: 54 975 039 820
in...@picsource.com.au
www.picsource.com.au
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Voetsch Publishing" <fre...@yahoo.com>
To: <STOCK...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 2:34 PM
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Christmas Cheer from Fred
>
> Terry Oakley Wrote:
> >mind you 'fresh, new minds' don't crash and burn using (abusing?) this
>
> >new
> >found power!!
>
> Point taken, but we have already and will again...crash, that is.
>
> But is it so hard to get back up, dust yourself off and try again?
>
> And yes, I do get a bit full of myself from time-to-time (well, okay,
> USUALLY) but dare I walk into a brave new world without a sense of
> daring and bravado? I think not.
>
> Now, please, please, please, Terry Oakley (thanks to Bob #36 for that
> hint about not just using first names), I am sure you are insulted by
> my words here, but how..and why? Please, please, please (Bob Croxford
> taught me that word - I LOVE IT) explain to my young and feeble mind
> what I say that offends you so?
>
> Now, Terry, it's all in fun....
Mark Harwood
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Voetsch Publishing"
To my knowledge that is a mistaken idea of copyright. You cannot
> copyright a concept or an idea. For example, someone has produced an
> image of a monkey in a business suit carrying a briefcase and I like
> that idea and create a strikingly similar image. I am perfectly within
> the law to do so. Only by actually reproducing someone elses
> copyrighted work, i.e., copying the digital file, scanning it or
> photographing it, would I be committing copyright infringement.
Dear Fred,
If you create a piece of work that's identical (very similar in every
respect) to another photographers work, that is a copyright infringement, in
the UK and Europe at any rate. It has happened to me, I've proved it and
happily won the cash from the 'client' :o)
Cheers,
Mark.
----------------------------------------
Mark Harwood Photography
Studio12
The Waterside
44-48 Wharf Road
London N1 7SF
Tel: 020 7490 8787
Mobile: 07702 233721
----------------------------------------
www.markharwoodstudio.co.uk
in...@markharwood.plus.com
----------------------------------------
<fre...@yahoo.com>
To: <STOCK...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1:53 AM
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Copyright Infringement?
>
> --- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, David Kilpatrick <
> >
> > If a client can look at a stock image,
> > and see that it costs $1000, and realises that for $500 a local
> > professional can produce much the same thing tomorrow, why
> should they
> > buy stock?
>
> Paul Panayiotou Then Wrote:
> >Copyright infringement would one good reason
>
>>
bhhc
> > Your knowledge is flawed. If you hire someone to copy an image with the
> > express idea of getting it cheaper it is an infringement. You are not
> > copying an Idea, you are copying an existing image. If you took the
idea
> > and used a different animal, there would be no infringement.
> >
>
> However, if you are a client are you say to a designer, 'I want a photo
> of a monkey in a business suit with a briefcase, see if you can find one
> on-line' and the designer finds one, and it costs $3000 for the use, and
> there happens to be a local part-time photographer whose main job is as
> an organ-grinder and therefore has a monkey and can easily rustle up a
> business suit...
>
> Very often the idea for the photo is the designer's or client's concept,
> and they look to stock agencies to find a match. If they do so, they are
> lucky (it's surprisingly difficult). But if they find a match and it's
> not quite what they want, they are not breaching any intellectual rights
> by commissioning something similar which DOES meet their original brief.
>
> David
Many years back I had a 5-star caterer approach us for an "identifying" shot
that was to be a 4' x 6' duratrans in their boutique, and a cover piece for
their booklet and promo piece for advertising. This was a big bucks job and
a client with an exceptionally good reputation and name. My heart sank and
the headache came on big time when at our meeting one of their people yanked
out a book about food and showed me the cover and said "we want you to
photograph that!". They were appalled when the first thing I said was to
flatly refuse them, and then proceeded into a brief explanation of
intellectual property rights 101 (I am not paid for that and I hate having
to do it!!!).
We ended up literally sparring with each other to change each subtle touch
in the image bit by bit until we had a similar "idea" but a very different
picture.
Davids' comment is appropriate sort of. While the laws are not much
different from Europe to NA, due to excessive activity of legal people here,
if you shoot an identical image but put in a blond instead of a brunette, or
an ethnic instead of a white, you WILL get sued, and it IS a variation of
copyright infringement.
Paul Aparycki
Catherine Lewis
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, kawyle wrote:
> If you intentionally track the details of the original image, that's
> copyright infringement. However, if it's only the general idea of a money
> in a suit with a briefcase that you copy, that isn't infringement.
How does this work vis a vis the thousands of copies of the Beatles' "Abbey Road" cover photo? Like, those are cleary copies, down to every single detail (clothing, shoes/barefootedness/etc)....
C.
terry@picsource
Fred and others,
Ozimages has been mentioned from time to time on this forum. the site is
quite a comprehensive one and is well run and maintained. the site has a
large and growing collection of images to browse but is mainly a referral
site to member photographers who negotiate with the clients re the sale of
any images. this is both the strength and weakness as it is not a
professional only site and attracts many 'bottom feeder' clients and
photographers who are willing to virtually give their images away . however
the owner and forums within the group are constantly working to address this
issue and increase returns for member photographers, unlike most other
agencies i know of who seem to be actively working to drive down the take
home for their contributors.
in answer to your questions without giving away any secrets;
> Is the system easy to use; to add, edit and remove images?
the image uploading and editing procedure is pretty simple and easy and is
being constantly upgraded and improved.
> Are they fair in their representation of photographers?
they aren't an agency so don't represent photographers as such. requests are
posted and photogs respond as they wish. otherwise clients search the
collection to find images and are then referred to the photographers to
negotiate.
it is a fairly unique and interesting site, not unlike Photographer's Direct
in the UK.
> Do they produce good results for what they charge?
i've personally stuck with it for a while now, despite minimal direct sales
through it (for several different reasons i think), because i think it's a
model that should be supported.
Terry Oakley
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The Picture Source
Specialising in science, medical & technical images
PO Box 434
Ocean Grove. Vic. 3226
Australia
Phone & fax: (+61) 03 5255 2088
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
ABN: 54 975 039 820
in...@picsource.com.au
www.picsource.com.au
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Voetsch Publishing" <fre...@yahoo.com>
To: <STOCK...@yahoogroups.com>
Paul Panayiotou
--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, David Kilpatrick
<iconmags3@b...> wrote:
> Very often the idea for the photo is the designer's or client's
concept,
How on earth do you know it's "very often", and even if true it's
still unlawful.
This is one of the pitiful and legally discredited excuses some
editors have said to me when insisting on an all rights grab for a
commission. 'It's our idea"...." Well, photograph it yourself !" is
my standard thought.
The creator is the first owner of copyright (unless he/she is
employed).
> and they look to stock agencies to find a match. If they do so,
they are
> lucky (it's surprisingly difficult). But if they find a match and it's
> not quite what they want, they are not breaching any intellectual
rights
> by commissioning something similar which DOES meet their
original brief.
They most certainly are in breach if anyone intentionally imitates
an existing image ie "something similar". So the client cannot
argue it was our idea but we saw this photo we liked and did
'something similar'
And besides aren't you shifting the goalposts here.? Initially you
were justifying such acts on the basis of cost savings!
I am very concerned that a publisher has a very personal
interpretation of copyright law. David, please brief yourself fully
For an online copy of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988 visit
www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_
en_1.htm
As creators we should all be fully aware of copyright law and the
value of our Intellectual Property.
It's bad enough fighting off some of the onerous rights grabbing
contracts that are pervading the profession but to hear someone
on this list seemingly advocating copyright infringement is frankly
despairing!
Needless to say, if anyone imitates my work, whether it be a
photo of a handshake or a monkey I will sue! So, David K, keep
off my photos or I'll see you in court!
Everyone on this list should feel the same way too.
Regards
Paul Panayiotou
Sean McCormick
Glenn Zumwalt wrote:
>Your knowledge is flawed. If you hire someone to copy an image with the
>express idea of getting it cheaper it is an infringement.
>
Let me get this straight. If an Edmonton publication wants to license
this image from me:
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2004/04/00102.php
...and I demand $1000, they are infringing my copyright if they pay
another photographer $250 to stand in the same spot at dusk and make a
nearly identical image of a publicly accessible public building?
Surely you jest.
s.
--
Digiteyesed Photography
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio
Under renovation - watch out for broken links.
David Kilpatrick
Paul Panayiotou wrote:
>
> David Kilpatrick you should perhaps reappraise your beliefs - as
> a publisher you are skating on very thin ice!
>
Indeed. I based many of my layout concepts and typography on the work of
Edward Booth-Clibborn and one or two others. Have I learned from them,
or have I infringed their copyright in the concepts of columnar page design?
I have published, and supported in evidence, claims by photographers
whose work has been copied. I find it pretty easy to tell the difference
between a copy of a photographic concept, and a photograph taken to
reflect a similar brief.
In 30 years of publishing photographs and with a library of several
thousand photographic books, I have seen many examples of copied work,
and generally, I never deal with the photographer again. One well-known
Fellow of RPS who died earlier this year showed a photograph copied from
one of Bryn Campbell's shots many years ago in a lecture, and proceded
to spout her version of Bryn's (much earlier) true story about 'her'
shot. I never published a single one of her images - ever. If there's
one thing I can't stand it's plagiarism. A second thing is lying.
Doesn't stop me occasionally shooting a bloke jumping over a puddle
though, and the day I see a wee lad proudly carting home some wine and
baguettes, I'll have the camera to my eye in record time ;-)
I'd like the know your views on owls and flash. Eric and David Hosking
have published very precise details of how to get the shots they took.
If a wildlife photographer then tries to repeat the effects, and capture
owls by flash at night, are they copying?
I've published diagrams and examples showing precisely how to achieve
certain portrait and beauty results, right down to shots of the studio,
focal length of lens, etc. If someone reads a book and then copies my
published set-up, are they in breach of my (perfectly legitimate) copyright?
Some years ago, the British professional 'Hot Club of Marbella' had to
reach an agreement not to enter any of the shots they took at
self-development shoots in national contests. This was a group of
leading professionals who were pretty well heeled, and spent a couple of
weeks every year in Spain for a bit a party, with professional models
for bridal and portrait shots in superb locations, which could be used
for marketing purposes - and also to exchange ideas. When two nearly
identical shots from different members of this group reached the finals
of one national award, the story 'broke' and UK awards and competitions
for professionals thereafter banned seminar and workshop shots from
entry. It was felt the work had as much to do with the teacher, as the
photographer. I was one of the editors who drew attention to the
problem, by the simple ruse of using two such images next to each other!
One of the basic tenets of British copyright law is 'there is no
copyright in an idea' - only in a work. You must copy the WORK itself,
not the concept, to breach copyright. I believe the situation in the USA
is not identical by any means, and each country will have its own
standards. Also, I took my publishing law module back in 1970 and
anything since then is based on updating the way everyone else does. I
have not gone back and studied it again. But I believe the 'idea'
yardstick still holds good in court. If it didn't, all the cloned
celeb-pap magazine titles in the UK would be fighting each other about
who had the idea of being utterly crap the start with.
David
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
David Kilpatrick
Paul:
I'm probably more familiar with the 1988 Act than you are, but more
importantly, with the previous copyright law which actually determines
the basis for protection - the 1988 Act is not about this at all. It
made some very important changes (authorship rights especially) but it
did not convey any 'added protection' in principle. It did enable
criminal proceedings rather than civil for breaches of copyright.
Here are two choice clauses from the 1988 Act: you may not like them,
but unfortunately, you can't just make this Act say what you think it
should.
(2) Where a design is created in pursuance of a commission, the person
commissioning the design is the first owner of any design right in it.
(it would be up to a court to decide whether a photographic brief
constituted a design, since this applies to products where more than 50
examples are produced)
7.--(1) No copyright subsists in a film, as such, made before 1st June 1957.
9. No copyright subsists in--
(a) a broadcast made before 1st June 1957, or
(b) a cable programme included in a cable programme service
before 1st January 1985
Another fun clause is that there is no copyright vested in computer
generated work. Read the Act. Love to know what Disney and Pixar think
of that clause!
If you could be kind enough to examine the Act, and copy for us any
clause which says that copyright may subsist in the idea or concept of
an artistic work, as opposed to its execution, I would be grateful. The
1988 Act simply doesn't deal with such thing. It deals with duration,
attribution of authorship, legal aspects of ownership of copyrights - it
does not address the question of whether a view of House of Parliament
seen through the London Eye is the copyright of the first photographer
who ever took on.
Infringement has been proved in a number of cases where a staged, or
very precisely composed, image has been copied. You may see the current
Fuji ads where Matt Stuart has done clever depth-of-field based double
take snaps. Copying one of those would be an infringement. Thinking of a
similar picture using exactly the same technique, but with entirely
different subject matter, would not be an infringement it would just be
very unoriginal thinking.
David
Bert P. Krages
The legal test in the United States is whether there is "substantial
similarity" and the jury gets to decide whether two images are
substantially similarity. The court's opinion in Leigh v. Warner Bros. is a
good example of how the analysis is done:
http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/99-10087.man.html
Bert P. Krages
Attorney at Law
6665 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97223
<http://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm>
Author of:
Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images
<http://www.krages.com/lhp.htm>
Heavenly Bodies: The Photographer's Guide to Astrophotography
<http://www.krages.com/hb.htm>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fred Voetsch Publishing
Here is an interesting case:
http://www.photosource.com/legal/lg_nov00.html
>>>
In summary the Court said that a derivative work requires a process of
recasting, transforming, or adapting one or more preexisting works with
the preexisting work coming within the general subject matter of
copyright.
<<<
Another reference:
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise6.html
>There is also a gray area between reproducing a work and creating a
derivative work. One does not need to produce a perfect copy in order
to infringe a copyright. Otherwise, a copier >could simply make a minor
change (an unimportant word in a book, or a pixel or two in a computer
image) and avoid infringing. The test for infringement established by
court cases is >whether the copy is “substantially similar” to the
original work. There is no hard-and-fast rule determining when
something is a substantially similar copy, and when it is a derivative
work, >since both will incorporate the original work in some way and
also have changed material. (There are few hard-and-fast rules in
intellectual property law.) But the touchstone for a >derivative work
is the “recasting, transforming, or adapting” of the original work,
often to a new form.
And yet another:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/
How much does originality count for in this issue?
To me it seems that photography, especially stock photography is more
difficult to protect in all areas simply because it is so common. Being
uncommon could be the key; now let's say that monkey was smoking a
cigar and sitting behind a microphone.... ;-)
The way I handle all of this is to simply never copy someone elses
work by even looking at it as I create my photo but just to save
interesting photos I come across and use them as inspiriation for photo
concepts. But then, I do not do custom, on-demand photography.
Fred Voetsch - Owner
http://AcclaimImages.com
David Kilpatrick
Fred Voetsch Publishing wrote:
> The way I handle all of this is to simply never copy someone elses
> work by even looking at it as I create my photo but just to save
> interesting photos I come across and use them as inspiriation for photo
> concepts. But then, I do not do custom, on-demand photography.
>
We all of us copy other people from the day we are born. We copy
expressions, we copy sounds and then language. Breathing, eating,
excreting, and a few other functions don't have to be taught or learned.
Nearly everything else we do - our thoughts, visual parameters, social
relationships - the entire lot is copied, because that is all that
'learning' is.
Most photographers I know, like most musicians, do very little except
repeat aspects of what they have seen (heard) previously. Originality in
true sense is very hard to find indeed, and when you do see it, it's not
always appreciated because the same process happens to picture buyers.
I find it most depressing when I get another Antelope Canyon or Dune 45
Namibia shot which really *is* a photographer going along and looking
for the tripod holes!
I published a Dune 45 shot this month. The photographer has photographed
the sign saying Dune 45 instead of the dune. Much more fun.
David
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
Glenn Zumwalt
At 08:48 AM 12/14/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Davids' comment is appropriate sort of. While the laws are not much
>different from Europe to NA, due to excessive activity of legal people here,
>if you shoot an identical image but put in a blond instead of a brunette, or
>an ethnic instead of a white, you WILL get sued, and it IS a variation of
>copyright infringement.
>
>Paul Aparycki
The only way you can beat it is if YOU and PROVE that you have never seen
the original image. With most images that are infringed, this is very
hard, if not impossible, to do.
_____________________
Glenn Zumwalt Fotografy
age, Alamy, SAA, EP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ekatsumata
--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, Catherine Lewis <cplewis@i...>
wrote:
> How does this work vis a vis the thousands of copies of the
Beatles' "Abbey Road" cover photo? Like, those are cleary copies,
down to every single detail (clothing, shoes/barefootedness/etc)....
It's not an issue unless the owner of the copyright wants to take
legal action. And if I'm not mistaken, parodies such as what you
describe are okay.
Ei Katsumata
Paul Panayiotou
David, the law is very clear.
I do not believe that you would wilfully breach copyright but I do
fear that your interpretation of the copyright law does not stand
up to close scrutiny and thus not only exposes yourself to risk but
carries with it the danger that other list members may be misled
It's your call...you alone can decide whether you ought to re-brief
yourself on copyright. But don't go copying any of my photos -
your idea or not!
Regards
Paul Panayiotou
--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, David Kilpatrick
<iconmags3@b...> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Panayiotou wrote:
>
>
> >
> > David Kilpatrick you should perhaps reappraise your beliefs -
as
> > a publisher you are skating on very thin ice!
> >
...
Sean McCormick
Fred Voetsch Publishing wrote:
>Do they produce good results for what they charge?
>
>
They charge. 'Nuff said.
s.
--
Digiteyesed Photography
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio
Under renovation - watch out for broken links.
Glenn Zumwalt
At 12:31 AM 12/14/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>Let me get this straight. If an Edmonton publication wants to license this
>image from me:
>
>http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2004/04/00102.php
>
>...and I demand $1000, they are infringing my copyright if they pay
>another photographer $250 to stand in the same spot at dusk and make a
>nearly identical image of a publicly accessible public building?
>
>Surely you jest.
>
>s.
Here are a few examples:
Elliot Erwitt collected 30,000GBP from a client who copied a picture after
declining to pay 3,000GBP for it.
Madonna paid a substantial sum to the estate of Guy Bourdin for copying one
of his images.
Several jazz musicians in Paris collected 50,000GBP for pictures of them
copied by others.
Do you really want to take the chance and copy work belonging to someone else?
_____________________
Glenn Zumwalt Fotografy
age, Alamy, SAA, EP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kilpatrick
Glenn Zumwalt wrote:
> At 12:31 AM 12/14/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>Let me get this straight. If an Edmonton publication wants to license this
>>image from me:
>>
>>http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2004/04/00102.php
>>
>>...and I demand $1000, they are infringing my copyright if they pay
>>another photographer $250 to stand in the same spot at dusk and make a
>>nearly identical image of a publicly accessible public building?
>>
>>Surely you jest.
>>
>>s.
>
>
> Here are a few examples:
>
> Elliot Erwitt collected 30,000GBP from a client who copied a picture after
> declining to pay 3,000GBP for it.
>
> Madonna paid a substantial sum to the estate of Guy Bourdin for copying one
> of his images.
>
> Several jazz musicians in Paris collected 50,000GBP for pictures of them
> copied by others.
>
> Do you really want to take the chance and copy work belonging to someone else?
>
I think there are crossed wires here. Take as an example Andy Earl's
picture of Duran Duran on Primrose Hill - it is a 'copy' of Bill
Brandt's portrait of Francis Bacon in the same spot, but it is not a
copyright actionable imitation of the original image. The tonality,
angle, disposition of subjects etc is not identical. It's just the use
of a familiar background. It would be best described as a homage - a
reference to a well-known work.
An famous picture of a tiny dog in a humorous situation with a very
large one, precisely copied by someone, is an actionable copyright
infringement. But a picture of a Chihuahua and a Great Dane in some
other disposition within the frame is not an infringement.
The last instance you quote is physical copying of images, I think, not
imitation.
No-one is suggesting that anyone should copy work.
Let's reduce it to a sensible level. An agency needs a picture of a
white coral sand beach with a set of perfect footprints and a palm tree.
They search for it and find that there are dozens of them out there (all
copied, I guess, from Mr Crusoe's first experiments with an 18th century
camera obscure and stick of charcoal). But none of the footprints are
actually what they want. So they email the same photographer who
contacted me last week shooting in the Caribbean, and send a sketch with
exactly where the footprints should go.
Is anyone seriously suggesting that this photographer is then breaching
the copyright of 10,000 other photographers who have all shot white sand
beaches with overhanging palm tree?
David
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
David Kilpatrick
Paul Panayiotou wrote:
>
>
> David, the law is very clear.
>
> I do not believe that you would wilfully breach copyright but I do
> fear that your interpretation of the copyright law does not stand
> up to close scrutiny and thus not only exposes yourself to risk but
> carries with it the danger that other list members may be misled
>
> It's your call...you alone can decide whether you ought to re-brief
> yourself on copyright. But don't go copying any of my photos -
> your idea or not!
>
But many of your pictures are copies of ones I took in 1970! You even
have a view of a building with windows. And a picture of a dog.
Seriously - you have a shot of a guardsman's feet - A6CW7C. Now I can't
tell you who first did this or when, but it's a shot which dates back a
long time and has been repeated in exhibitions and magazines over the
years. Clearly, it is so generic is not copyrightable.
However, last month there was an exhibition in London which consisted
entirely of views of the Tower of London shown as reflections in the
highly polished shoe toecaps of Yeomen of the Guard (I am not joking).
This is clearly a copyrightable concept and the intellectual property of
this artist, who has staged an exhibition and has a catalogue printed - etc.
Now if an ad agency commissions you to photograph, shall we say, St
Stephen's Tower (aka Big Ben) perfectly reflected in the polished boot
of a policeman - etc - I think there would be a chance of a successful
copyright action.
Many of your pictures do not contain a copyrightable uniqueness (you can
show that any one street photo imitates another unless it is staged to
do so) but a good few do; backwards TELEPHONE above callgirl cards, man
peeping over blurred flowers for sale - very distinctive, as is your
strong use of blurred foreground motifs generally. I would say you
consciously pay homage to Cartier-Bresson in photo A4TBC1, and most
people will know which CB shot I mean. And damn me if A4TC13 doesn't
contain just a backreference too!
You use some motifs which are copied from others; the blurred London bus
with sharp tower is 'after' Francisco Hidalgo (1976) while he in turn
was developing ideas about using movement from Ernst Haas. It's
amazingly difficult to be a visually aware photographer today and not
have 50 years of postwar photographic heritage in your brain. If you
were to show your Alamy portfolio to, say, David Hurn he would be able
to tell you exactly why all of the various street photography techniques
you use are acceptable today, visually; why they were not acceptable 40
years ago; which photographers changed our way of reading such pictures;
and more or less who you are 'imitating' without knowing it. I do not
mean that negatively. We all do it.
David
Stockphoto Seller
Thanks for your suggestion, Sean. Knowing that you wouldn't suspect a good fellow like me of appropriating your image, I have just "photographed" the building under precisely the same lighting conditions, but with a couple of monkeys in business suits on the steps to make it more my own.
Carl May
Sean McCormick <se...@digiteyesed.com> wrote:
Glenn Zumwalt wrote:
>Your knowledge is flawed. If you hire someone to copy an image with the
>express idea of getting it cheaper it is an infringement.
>
Let me get this straight. If an Edmonton publication wants to license
this image from me:
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2004/04/00102.php
...and I demand $1000, they are infringing my copyright if they pay
another photographer $250 to stand in the same spot at dusk and make a
nearly identical image of a publicly accessible public building?
Surely you jest.
s.
--
Digiteyesed Photography
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio
Under renovation - watch out for broken links.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.cfm#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.cfm
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Panayiotou
Thanks for reviewing my Alamy portfolio!
Copy, imitation and intent are not present in the Cuba photos you
mention - influence yes.
As for the others I have never seen the pre-dating images you
mention so where is the intent for starters?
I'm very much influenced by that (HCB) generation of humanistic
photographers but my own personal vision is evolving.
Tomorrow when I think they ought to be online have a look at my
Ayia Napa resort photos and let me know whose style I've been
copying this time! There's an 18 month gap between the Cuba
monochrome shots (2001) and Ayia Napa colour images (2002).
Or for a more recent example look at the Cuban Hip Hop images
(2003) which are part of a photo essay.
The issue David is not about winning an argument, it is about
explaining Copyright law with honesty and with reasonable care
for accuracy. We as list members have a responsibility to fellow
members and professionals in general to take care when
making representations, especially in such serious matters as
copyright
For instance your recent and erroneous inference that copyright
[of photography] automatically belongs to the commissioning
agent and not the photographer is truly alarming!!!..I'm really not
sure which Act you are reading but please do not feed such
nonsense into this group..it is dangerously misleading
I don't have time to fish for copies of the relavent sections of the
CDP Act 1988. It's online if you are interested and I implore you
to visit
David, I'm sorry but I cannot say any more on the subject and ask
to be excused! I'm tired of frequently having to address
misrepresentations and misunderstandings about the CDP.
Anyone here interested in learning about copyright should make
there own enquiries
You can look at
1. Copyright Design & Patents Act 1988 [UK]
www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm
2. Intellectual Property [UK]
www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/
or
3.Enrol on a Copyright seminar
And finally you wrote:
> Many of your pictures do not contain a copyrightable
uniqueness
Excuse me? Am I reading this correctly?
Regards
Paul Panayiotou
-- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, David Kilpatrick
<iconmags3@b...> wrote:
>
>
> Many of your pictures do not contain a copyrightable
uniqueness (you can
> show that any one street photo imitates another unless it is
staged to
> do so) but a good few do; backwards TELEPHONE above
callgirl cards, man
> peeping over blurred flowers for sale - very distinctive, as is
your
> strong use of blurred foreground motifs generally. I would say
you
> consciously pay homage to Cartier-Bresson in photo A4TBC1,
and most
> people will know which CB shot I mean. And damn me if
A4TC13 doesn't
> contain just a backreference too!
>....
ekatsumata
--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, Sean McCormick <sean@d...> wrote:
>
> Glenn Zumwalt wrote:
>
> >Your knowledge is flawed. If you hire someone to copy an image
with the
> >express idea of getting it cheaper it is an infringement.
> >
> Let me get this straight. If an Edmonton publication wants to
license
> this image from me:
>
> http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2004/04/00102.php
>
> ...and I demand $1000, they are infringing my copyright if they pay
> another photographer $250 to stand in the same spot at dusk and
make a
> nearly identical image of a publicly accessible public building?
>
> Surely you jest.
Only if the intent was to copy your photo. I read about a case where
a client wanted a specific image, but the photographer wanted to
charge too much (sorry, don't remember where I read it) . The client
hired another photographer and told them to take a photo just like
that, showing the photographer a copy of the original photo for
reference. This clearly showed an intent to copy.
Ei Katsumata
se...@digiteyesed.com
> Do you really want to take the chance and copy
> work belonging to someone else?
You're right. I guess I've photographed my last public landmark. I look
forward to my new career as a Walmart greeter.
s.
Pat Kane
On Dec 14, 2004, at 5:02 PM, Stockphoto Seller wrote:
>> Your knowledge is flawed. If you hire someone to copy an image with
>> the
>> express idea of getting it cheaper it is an infringement.
We've had two instances of successful out-of-court settlements when
clients have done just that. Our most successful stock shot ever was
perfectly duplicated by AG Edwards on the cover of a capability
brochure. The shot was a night time scene of a father and son with a
huge telescope on a tripod looking up at the moon. The majority of the
frame was sky with the people fairly small in the lower left-hand
corner and the moon in the upper right hand corner. They had a
photographer recreate it with exact spacing but substituting a girl for
the boy. In the other instance Kinkos exactly duplicated an images we
had of a potted evergreen seedling sitting on a pile of direct mail
catalogs and next to a huge, haphazard stack of catalogs in which we
had drilled a hole and stacked up on a broom stick. Their shot was
identical in every way except they substituted office paper for
catalogs. In both cases the infringing image could be superimposed
over our image and even subtleties were identical. What I'd like to
know is who are these photographers who knowingly do this? Because we
didn't actually go to trial we were unable to find out who actually
took the infringing photographs. But it's interesting that we settled
in the mid 5-figures after sending a simple attorney's letter. They
both knew they didn't have a fighting chance.
Pat Kane
Palmer/Kane Studios
Steve Smith
> Fred Voetsch Publishing wrote:
>
> >Do they produce good results for what they charge?
> >
> >
--- Sean McCormick <se...@digiteyesed.com> wrote:
> They charge. 'Nuff said.
Whenever I see a stock photo agency that charges
photographers any kind of money to list there I always
ask myself the question.
Are they in it to make money FOR the photographer or
FROM the photographer?
Steve
=====
Steve Smith
World of Stock
http://www.worldofstock.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
David Kilpatrick
Paul Panayiotou wrote:
> For instance your recent and erroneous inference that copyright
> [of photography] automatically belongs to the commissioning
> agent and not the photographer is truly alarming!!!..I'm really not
> sure which Act you are reading but please do not feed such
> nonsense into this group..it is dangerously misleading
I have never at any time said this. I did however cut and paste the
section of the 1988 Copyright Act which affirms that the copyright in
Designs (not photographs) is vested in the commissioning agent. You
don't have time to read the Act, I have read it through many times.
>
> I don't have time to fish for copies of the relavent sections of the
> CDP Act 1988. It's online if you are interested and I implore you
> to visit
>
> David, I'm sorry but I cannot say any more on the subject and ask
> to be excused! I'm tired of frequently having to address
> misrepresentations and misunderstandings about the CDP.
It's your own misrepresentations I find most worrying. You seem to think
the 1988 describes the basis for Copyright. It does not. It was an
amendment to durations, ownerships, authorships, civil and criminal
status of violators, and numerous anomalous conditions which existed
before 1988. It did not alter the nature of copyright itself, in a
photograph or anything else. It made many negative changes to rights
which are hidden - earlier this year, Bob Croxford almost blew a fuse
when I pointed out that newspapers and encyclopedias don't have to print
bylines, and I had to cut and past the relevant clauses to back up this
(which I have known since 1988 as it was one of the most controversial
late amendments pushed through by the newspaper owners).
I spend the best part of five years before and after the 87 bill and 88
act dealing with its implications, publishing all the terms and relevant
details, publishing letters, commentaries, the lot. It did not
materially affect any of the copyright law I had to study back in 1970 -
durations, ownership, rights of identification etc - sure. But the idea
some photographers have that this act somehow enshrined unassailable
rights to earn repeat fees is erroneous. Those rights existed before
1988 and if anything independent photographers are worse off today than
20 years ago, because the constant trumpeting of the 1988 Act led to
deliberate changes in commissioning contracts by countless publishers,
'rights grabbing' in a way which they had never considered necessary before.
>
> Anyone here interested in learning about copyright should make
> there own enquiries
>
> You can look at
>
> 1. Copyright Design & Patents Act 1988 [UK]
> www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm
>
> 2. Intellectual Property [UK]
> www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/
>
> or
>
> 3.Enrol on a Copyright seminar
>
> And finally you wrote:
>
>
>>Many of your pictures do not contain a copyrightable
>
> uniqueness
>
> Excuse me? Am I reading this correctly?
>
Completely. In themselves, as images, they are copyright. But your
assertion that any similar image might be a breach of copyright is
meaningless in many cases, as they are generic images similar to those
taken by most photographers under similar conditions.
David
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
David Kilpatrick
Paul Panayiotou wrote:
> For instance your recent and erroneous inference that copyright
> [of photography] automatically belongs to the commissioning
> agent and not the photographer is truly alarming!
I would just like to repeat here that Paul's statement above does not
refer to anything I have said.
However, to clarify, in the UK:
Prior to 1988, copyright in photographs taken by EMPLOYERS of staff
belonged to the employer automatically, and the staff had no moral right
to be identified as author
Prior to 1988, copyright in photographs COMMISSIONED from a
self-employed photographer belonged to the photographer, but the client
was not obliged to identify the author. However, many clients had
contracts which stipulated surrender of copyright. Photographers often
insisted on time-limited clauses instead, or 'reversion of residual
rights' (a phrase from book publishing) after a set period. Often they
made sure only the final images selected for use were covered, and the
remainder belonged to the photographer.
After 1988, employed photographers retain the copyright - that is, the
ultimate right as author, and the right to be identified; this doesn't
mean they are entitled to any further payment, and the employer has
effective possession of the photographs. In many cases contracts of
employment now make this clear.
After 1988, the major change in copyright ownership for commissioned
work is actually the right to be identified. What this means in practice
is that in catalogues, leaflets, advertisements, posters etc the
photographer can request - and can not be refused - a byline to appear
alongside the picture. This is an absolute right which is only waived
when the image is a news picture 'for the purposes of reporting current
events', or appears in one or two specific types of publications, for
some peculiar reason including encyclopedias and 'collective works of
reference'. Copyright, that is authorship, is an absolute and
inalienable right. You may grant a licence in perpetuity for the entire
universe but for all of eternity, you remain the author of the work, and
entitled to be named as such.
It remains a matter of amusement that the right of identification is
rarely used in advertising (where it is legally enforcable!) and often
given away free by newspapers (who can print every picture as if it was
anonymous... by law). The 1988 Act was not perfect.
David
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
Rubens Abboud
--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, Pat Kane <pkane@c...> wrote:
> We've had two instances of successful out-of-court settlements
when
> clients have done just that.
Pat,
I'm curious: how did you become aware of the infringements?
Best regards,
Rubens.
http://www.TheImageNation.com
Travel stock photography
roblaceyphotographer
David Kilpatrick wrote
> Prior to 1988, copyright in photographs taken by EMPLOYERS of staff
> belonged to the employer automatically, and the staff had no moral right
> to be identified as author
>
> Prior to 1988, copyright in photographs COMMISSIONED from a
> self-employed photographer belonged to the photographer
>
> After 1988, employed photographers retain the copyright - that is, the
> ultimate right as author, and the right to be identified; this doesn't
> mean they are entitled to any further payment, and the employer has
> effective possession of the photographs. In many cases contracts of
> employment now make this clear.
> After 1988, the major change in copyright ownership for commissioned
> work is actually the right to be identified.
I think you have this all wrong - at least the most important points - this
needs to be publicly clarified on list by someone who ACTUALLY know what
their talking about
what youve written certainly isnt my understanding or the understanding of
organisation like the AOP, NUJ & EPUK
getting things like this wrong and posting them just leads to already
unknowledgable / inexperienced photographers going of even more half cocked
this kind of mis-information IMHO is in part why we have so many RF
photographers running around the place
HELP HELP HELP are any of the EPUK lot on this list, Andrew / David etc to
clarify this now before anymore nonsense gets taken as gospel
as I understand it
(and Im talking about ownership not the right to identity)
now after the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988
a) an employer owns the copyright of work only by staff only -
BUT THEY DO NOT OWN IT IF IT WAS TAKEN BY COMMISSIONED FREELANCERS OR
SHIFTERS
b) copyright STILL belongs to the photographer if they were commissioned and
are not staff THEREFORE -
c) they are entitled to further payments - they own the copyright -
NOT THE PERSON WHO COMMISSIONED IT
see
http://www.epuk.org/curve/grossett/copyright.html
http://media.gn.apc.org/c-basics.html
http://www.roblaceyphotographer.co.uk/copyright.php
cheers Rob
r...@roblaceyphotographer.co.uk
www.roblaceyphotographer.co.uk
www.vividstock.net
David Kilpatrick
roblaceyphotographer wrote:
> as I understand it
> (and Im talking about ownership not the right to identity)
>
> now after the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988
>
> a) an employer owns the copyright of work only by staff only -
>
> BUT THEY DO NOT OWN IT IF IT WAS TAKEN BY COMMISSIONED FREELANCERS OR
> SHIFTERS
>
Sorry - I should have said that the *ownership of copyright* remains
with the employer as before but the 'moral right' of authorship was
asserted. Unless a contract of employment states otherwise (in either
direction).
> b) copyright STILL belongs to the photographer if they were commissioned and
> are not staff THEREFORE -
>
> c) they are entitled to further payments - they own the copyright -
>
> NOT THE PERSON WHO COMMISSIONED IT
>
That is exactly what I said, except that the Act does not convey, and
never has conveyed, any 'entitlement to further payments' unless you
restrict the usage of the work at the very start. If you take a
photograph which is acknowledged to be for a client's use and no
contract is drawn up limiting the use, you have no 'entitlement to
further payments'.
But if they do some Photoshop work on it you can stop them using the result.
> see
>
> http://www.epuk.org/curve/grossett/copyright.html
This one's a bit of a rant.
>
> http://media.gn.apc.org/c-basics.html
This one is much more objective and still sees that more needs to be
achieved - and acknowleges, since it's the NUJ, the hidden damage done
by the 1988 Act, and the importance of not signing contracts which
sacrifice rights.
>
> http://www.roblaceyphotographer.co.uk/copyright.php
And this one explains the decline of industrial and corporate
photography in the UK... sadly! Every word of it is true, but for every
client financially able to accept such terms there must be ten who
can't. No wonder I find it next to impossible to get decent PR photos
commissioned by big national agencies - they send me snaps taken 'by the
client', or digicam shots taken by one of their staff writers, when I
say I want a powerful environmental portrait which combines the subject
and the product in a visually strong background, taken by a competent PR
or editorial feature specialist. Such pix were common 20 years ago and
an extreme rarity today.
>
> cheers Rob
>
> r...@roblaceyphotographer.co.uk
> www.roblaceyphotographer.co.uk
> www.vividstock.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
> Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.cfm#rules
> STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.cfm
> STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
Paul Panayiotou
I'm here Rob! But I don't have the depth of knowledge and
experience of many other EPUKERS
I have said this many times before, I genuinely fear that DK's
viewpoints are potentially damaging to the industry.
David K, I am sorry if this sounds mean, it is not meant to
ridicule nor criticise at a personal level, but I am **genuinely**
appalled and dismayed at some of your viewpoints on our
profession.
There are many people here whose main or sole income is
photography. Perhaps others are not too concerned because it
is just a sideline, but for us it is crucial that misinformation,
whether intended or not, is rectified.
Irresponsible statements seriously damage our health. You
(DK) are commenting on my livelihood
Regards
Paul Panayiotou
--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, roblaceyphotographer
<rl005b8891@b...> wrote:
>
> HELP HELP HELP are any of the EPUK lot on this list, Andrew /
David etc to
> clarify this now before anymore nonsense gets taken as
gospel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kilpatrick
Paul:
>
>
> David K, I am sorry if this sounds mean, it is not meant to
> ridicule nor criticise at a personal level, but I am **genuinely**
> appalled and dismayed at some of your viewpoints on our
> profession.
>
> There are many people here whose main or sole income is
> photography. Perhaps others are not too concerned because it
> is just a sideline, but for us it is crucial that misinformation,
> whether intended or not, is rectified.
>
> Irresponsible statements seriously damage our health. You
> (DK) are commenting on my livelihood
>
I will admit that although I made nearly everything I have from
photography - pure commercial and editorial photography - it has often
been on the back of production, design, writing, typography. Nothing
ever paid more than pure photography though. Nothing has ever paid less
than what I'm doing now, but that's another story.
The root of this argument was whether a client finding stock photography
for a specific use would max out the budget and still not hit the mark,
might decide to commission instead. In my experience this has happened
and does happen.
A knee-jerk reaction emerged - 'that would be breaching copyright' which
is utter nonsense unless some slavish reproduction of a specific stock
image was set up.
There was a period, and a pretty bad one for stock photographers, before
internet and in the heyday of the catalogues where crap designers would
photocopy specific images from Stone or whatever's latest book and
design their ads round the result. The client would then want that
image. In these circumstances there's a real risk of trying to get a
copy shot taken. I guess the same can happen with Alamy comps etc but I
would hope designers using comps intend to use the actual shot. At least
it no longer means the catalogue images appearing everywhere and
outselling all other content ten to one!
I've never dealt with the kind of agencies or designers who do that sort
of stuff - hunting down ideas from stock image books and scamping up
from whatever happened to be on the page. I've encountered them but have
zero empathy with that sort of lack of creativity. Nor have I ever done
so myself when working on ad design.
David
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
Stockphoto Seller
Sean,
It is not the landmark but, rather your photo of it that is copyrighted.
Here's a little story. There is a road on the Marin Headlands, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge between San Francisco and Marin County, that has three or four turnouts from which the bridge with the city behind it is photographed at least hundreds of thousands times per year by everyone from rank amateur tourists to professionals with view cameras. About 10 years ago, an amateur acquaintance of mine took a common composition from one of the turnouts using a short telephoto on a 35mm SLR. Yawn. But he shot the towers, which had been recently illuninated with soft artificial lighting, at twilight using tungsten film. (I forget why he tried tungsten.) The result was a color tone and mood no one had ever quite seen before. The San Francisco Travel and Visitor's Bureau (or the agency that sounds like that) bought multi-year travel/tourism promotional rights to the image for something like $4-$5,000, and he has had multiple sales of the image for other uses, especially prints for wall
art. Any competent photographer could have "copied" the image on a similar evening, but there is enough unique about it that people see the wisdom of getting it from him instead rather than challenging his copyright.
Carl May/BPS
se...@digiteyesed.com wrote:
> Do you really want to take the chance and copy
> work belonging to someone else?
You're right. I guess I've photographed my last public landmark. I look
forward to my new career as a Walmart greeter.
s.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kilpatrick
Carl, I live about an hour from the Forth Rail and road bridges near
Edinburgh.
There are maybe ten absolute classic images of these which sell all the
time.
No matter when I've been nearby, the view has not matched up! I do not
have a single classic image of the bridge in 16 years here.
I live near a particular tower (castle). A few years ago Brian
(?-forgotten his name! late night) and Ed Nagele, rather well-known UK
stock photographers, dropped in for a coffee and to shoot the weeds in
my garden (poppies, couldn't stop them, like flies round a cowpat!), and
got directions for this tower.
Next year, one of them had a postcard in sale in our town of his shot of
that tower... taken the same day I told 'em where to go! I've never sold
one yet and I've got a few classic views of it.
This is one of the things I really like about photography!
David
Stockphoto Seller wrote:
> Sean,
>
> It is not the landmark but, rather your photo of it that is copyrighted.
>
> Here's a little story. There is a road on the Marin Headlands, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge between San Francisco and Marin County, that has three or four turnouts from which the bridge with the city behind it is photographed at least hundreds of thousands times per year by everyone from rank amateur tourists to professionals with view cameras. About 10 years ago, an amateur acquaintance of mine took a common composition from one of the turnouts using a short telephoto on a 35mm SLR. Yawn. But he shot the towers, which had been recently illuninated with soft artificial lighting, at twilight using tungsten film. (I forget why he tried tungsten.) The result was a color tone and mood no one had ever quite seen before. The San Francisco Travel and Visitor's Bureau (or the agency that sounds like that) bought multi-year travel/tourism promotional rights to the image for something like $4-$5,000, and he has had multiple sales of the image for other uses, especially prints
fo!
> r wall
> art. Any competent photographer could have "copied" the image on a similar evening, but there is enough unique about it that people see the wisdom of getting it from him instead rather than challenging his copyright.
>
> Carl May/BPS
>
> se...@digiteyesed.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>Do you really want to take the chance and copy
>>work belonging to someone else?
>
>
> You're right. I guess I've photographed my last public landmark. I look
> forward to my new career as a Walmart greeter.
>
> s.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
> Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.cfm#rules
> STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.cfm
> STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
Sean McCormick
Stockphoto Seller wrote:
>Any competent photographer could have "copied" the image on a similar evening, but there is enough unique about it that people see the wisdom of getting it from him instead rather than challenging his copyright.
>
>
And should I come along some evening and make an image of the same
landmark using tungsten film, all the while having absolutely no
awareness of this fellow's 'unique' image, I'm suddenly guilty of
copyright infringement? I'm sorry, but that's a load of bollocks. I
haven't copied the original image, nor was there any intent to.
s.
--
Digiteyesed Photography
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio
Under renovation - watch out for broken links.
Pat Kane
My husband/partner, Gabe Palmer, and I were traveling in a band bus
with our youngest son for about 14 months. This took us in and out of
places we wouldn't normally visit like many, many Kinkos and strangely
several offices of AG Edwards who was our broker at the time. We'd
stop in and write a check to move funds from our money account into our
401Ks. During that trip we also shopped in Walmart quite a bit out of
absolute necessity. I had never been in one before but the first one
we visited had a 20' banner just inside each door featuring one of our
images. It turns our their designer of in-store displays had bought
"test-market" rights for three months but the banners were in every
store we visited for over a year. In this case our agency, The Stock
Market, was willing to take on the collection of the license fees but
in the other two cases they were not willing to get involved.
Pat
On Dec 15, 2004, at 8:18 AM, Rubens Abboud wrote:
> I'm curious: how did you become aware of the infringements?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stockphoto Seller
The point, Sean, is that you would have to make an effort to make a copyright-infringing similar. The odds that you would do it accidentally are vanishingly small, though you could do it fairly easily with intent. The same goes for your image of a public building (to which I have now added a dolphin jumping in the reflecting pool).
Carl May/BPS
Sean McCormick <se...@digiteyesed.com> wrote:
Stockphoto Seller wrote:
>Any competent photographer could have "copied" the image on a similar evening, but there is enough unique about it that people see the wisdom of getting it from him instead rather than challenging his copyright.
>
>
And should I come along some evening and make an image of the same
landmark using tungsten film, all the while having absolutely no
awareness of this fellow's 'unique' image, I'm suddenly guilty of
copyright infringement? I'm sorry, but that's a load of bollocks. I
haven't copied the original image, nor was there any intent to.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Henschel
> Another fun clause is that there is no copyright vested in computer
> generated work. Read the Act. Love to know what Disney and Pixar think
> of that clause!
Just clarify with a short comment. Computer GENERATED images (such as a
fractal design) is different from work created USING a computer. If the
computer creates the image, there is no copyright. If the person using a
computer creates the design, it is covered (unless plagiarized).
Valerie Henschel
Regional Photo
hens...@tenforward.com
David Kilpatrick
And they have registered the designs on paper long before they hit the
computer too. I was not thinking of Pixar seriously, but Bryce is a fair
example - no real user intervention and the landscape is created by the
program.
We used Bryce when it first appeared for some photo-real backgrounds but
always incorporated something else in the scene. At that time digital
libraries didn't exist and Bryce took days to render a view. It would be
interesting to dig it out and try on a modern fast machine.
It remains interesting; is a graded tint the work of the artist or the
computer?
David
Henschel wrote:
>
>>Another fun clause is that there is no copyright vested in computer
>>generated work. Read the Act. Love to know what Disney and Pixar think
>>of that clause!
>
>
> Just clarify with a short comment. Computer GENERATED images (such as a
> fractal design) is different from work created USING a computer. If the
> computer creates the image, there is no copyright. If the person using a
> computer creates the design, it is covered (unless plagiarized).
> Valerie Henschel
> Regional Photo
> hens...@tenforward.com
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
> Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.cfm#rules
> STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.cfm
> STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Icon Publications Ltd - f2, Master and Photoworld magazines
http://www.f2photo.co.uk http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk
Stock images at www.alamy.com -
Icon Digital Featurepix & David and Shirley Kilpatrick
Henschel
The definition I was given was if the computer generates an image by
following a program and inserts random factors/numbers to generate the art,
then it is computer generated. If it is a person using a program and
entering specific parameters for a desired results, then it is not computer
generated. And any computer generated image that is combined or obviously
modified by a person is no longer considered computer generated art.
Bryce sounds interesting- I have a vague recall of something like that.
Was it a program to create landscapes that were not real, but looked real?
Still got a copy?
As to the tint-if you specified the color and the distance (gradation)
or opacity, then it is not computer generated. If the computer randomly does
tints or gradations and you run the program until you find one you like,
then it is computer generated- even if the results are the same. That is,
until you combine it with some other art, then it is no longer computer
generated! So a computer generated tint could not be copyrighted, but the
program to create one could be copyrighted, and the tint then modified by a
human could be copyrighted.
Whew! This is too much thinking/typing for this late on a Friday!
Valerie Henschel
Regional Photo
hens...@tenforward.com
David Kilpatrick
Still got Bryce but I fear it's Mac OS 9 latest compatibility!
We run a magazine and got loads of stuff to test. If anyone really needs
XRES or LivePicture (with dongle!) for ancient Macs I am open to
negotiation... otherwise, running a small software museum!
David