***My photo was stolen***
Rich and Dr. Jules
aspirations of selling photo's of this trip. Lo and behold I pick up a
magazine and see a spread that he got published...the problem is with the
main lead in photo which is a huge 2 page one. I took that photo of
him...I remember setting it up and knew it would be killer. The reason
this is a problem is that I took the shot using his camera.
What should I do about this, I would at least like credit for it. I know
this magazine pays big bucks too.
Can a professional shed some light on this situation.
Thanks...
bobs...@my-dejanews.com
used the self timer or remote release. Have you contacted him and asked him
why he didn't give you credit?
We had a similar situation when I was working on PhotoPro magazine several
years ago. We ran a story about a guy and used several of his photos. Next
thing we knew we had an angry letter from a big name pro. Turns out this guy
was an assistant on some shoots and was shooting over the pro's shoulder.
There was no way for us to know this ahead of time.
So, what did we do? We ran an apology to the pro in the next issue, and
credited him for the photos, because even though the guy we wrote about really
took the photos he sent us, they were not his images.
In your case, if your partner won't make good on things, I advise you to
contact the editors of the magazine and ask for a correction and proper
credit. They will probably do this.
As for money, you will have to go after your partner for this. Assuming he
was paid for the images, then he owes you for that one. But you may be
surprised at the amount. Few magazines pay "big bucks" for photos these
days.
Bob Shell
In article <sparks-2007...@slc244h.modem.xmission.com>,
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Michael Gudzinowicz
Rich and Dr. Jules <spa...@campfour.win.net> writes:
>I went on a trip to a remote location with a partner. We both had
>aspirations of selling photo's of this trip. Lo and behold I pick up a
>magazine and see a spread that he got published...the problem is with the
>main lead in photo which is a huge 2 page one. I took that photo of
>him...I remember setting it up and knew it would be killer. The reason
>this is a problem is that I took the shot using his camera.
>
>What should I do about this, I would at least like credit for it. I know
>this magazine pays big bucks too.
>
>Can a professional shed some light on this situation.
should copy the pages from the magazine and file for copyright
immediately. If you don't, legal remedies are limited.
Very tactfully, you should engage him in a conversation with witnesses in
which you discuss his good fortune at getting the picture published, and
your role in the production. Alternatively, if it is legal in your state,
tape a phone conversation with him - it is admissible in federal courts.
If he doesn't dispute that you took the photo, you shouldn't have any
problem in collecting his fees and recovering the copyright. If you both
agree that it was collaborative, the copyright should be ammended, and
fees should be split. If he denies that you had any role in taking the
photo, the burden of proof is yours, not his, so reread the preceding
paragraphs.
If you can't work out an amicable settlement or if he decides to "change"
his story, see a copyright attorney - his fees will be covered under
statuatory damages if you file copyrigth immediately after discovery of
infringment.
Anthony
<6ovci0$c1s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>So, what did we do? We ran an apology to the pro in the next issue, and
>credited him for the photos, because even though the guy we wrote about
really
>took the photos he sent us, they were not his images.
If his assistant took the photos, they belong to his assistant, unless the
assistant was taking photos as work for hire.
--
Anthony
Keith Clark
Anthony wrote:
Last I heard, copyright goes to the person who created the images.
I would think in that case, that the images did belong to the assistant. The
Pro should have told him no shooting was alowed. But since he failed to llok
out for his own interests, tough beans. I don't think the assistant did
anything wrong.
I've worked as an assistant and been ripped off by "pros" so I feel for both
sides.
Keith
--
http://www.spiritone.com/~kclark/
Custom Screensavers
&
Professional Nature Photography
Lokari
>> If his assistant took the photos, they belong to his assistant, unless the
>> assistant was taking photos as work for hire.
>Last I heard, copyright goes to the person who created the images.
>I would think in that case, that the images did belong to the assistant. The
>Pro should have told him no shooting was alowed. But since he failed to llok
>out for his own interests, tough beans. I don't think the assistant did
>anything wrong.
It's a tough call. It seems fair to assume the assistant was being
paid for his time. Therefore, any work he produces during that time I
would think should be the property of the person paying him.
Example - I work for software company "A", and I own software company
"B". From 8:00am to 4:00pm, I'm being paid by "A" to work for them,
and anything I create during that time belongs to "A".
After hours, though, what I do with my time is no one at "A"'s
business, and my work for "B" is my own.
Seems to me that both the photog and the assistant made mistakes. The
assistant (based on the sketchy information) was shooting his own
pictures on "company time", and the photog let him get away with it or
didn't make his expectations clear up front.
Beyond that, there's an intellectual property question. Presumably,
the photog paid for the setup for the shoot (props, models, travel,
lights, etc). Also, he presumably designed the shot, be it an
arrangement of models and props, or a landscape at a specific location
and a specific time.
By taking pictures, the assistant quite possibly did little more than
push a button, taking advantage of the work and knowledge of his
employer.
Me, I'm kind of inclined to side with the employer on this one.
There's nothing wrong with the assistant learning all he can while on
the job, but he's still very much on the job, and owes his employer
first.
Rich and Dr. Jules
-->If he is IN the picture, then he can't claim he took it, unless he claims he
-->used the self timer or remote release. Have you contacted him and asked him
-->why he didn't give you credit?
-->
Yes he's in the photo...he's also away on a month long trip...more below
-->In your case, if your partner won't make good on things, I advise you to
-->contact the editors of the magazine and ask for a correction and proper
-->credit. They will probably do this.
talked to them today and they were very apologetic and wanted to get to
the bottom of this, again he's gone for a while so it won't happen soon.
They are also going to consider paying me for the photo (even though
they've paid him)
It all will come down to his honesty and frankly I'm not very encouraged
by my past dealings with him.
I've definately learned a few lessons.
Matt Kaarma
Matt
Rich and Dr. Jules wrote in message ...
>I went on a trip to a remote location with a partner. We both had
>aspirations of selling photo's of this trip. Lo and behold I pick up a
>magazine and see a spread that he got published...the problem is with the
>main lead in photo which is a huge 2 page one. I took that photo of
>him...I remember setting it up and knew it would be killer. The reason
>this is a problem is that I took the shot using his camera.
>
>What should I do about this, I would at least like credit for it. I know
>this magazine pays big bucks too.
>
>Can a professional shed some light on this situation.
>
J Greely
>Example - I work for software company "A", and I own software company
>"B". From 8:00am to 4:00pm, I'm being paid by "A" to work for them,
>and anything I create during that time belongs to "A".
>After hours, though, what I do with my time is no one at "A"'s
>business, and my work for "B" is my own.
Depends on the local laws and company policies; many high-tech
companies require an explicit Intellectual Property agreement as a
condition of employment, that on paper may give them ownership of a
novel you write on your own computer at home, outside of business
hours. They usually aren't enforced for obvious cases, but they make
you sign, just in case there's a non-obvious case they haven't thought
of yet.
-j
bobs...@my-dejanews.com
helped others avoid the pitfalls.
A couple of times photos taken at my workshops have ended up in print. I
hired the model, I posed her, I set up the background and props, and I set up
the lighting. The "photographer" only had to stand in the right place and
click the shutter. So is it his photo? Hardly.
It is not uncommon for big time professionals to have an assistant actually
click the shutter while they are occupied in fine tuning a pose or doing
something else on the set. There is never any question as to whose photo it
is.
This whole subject can be sticky. I hope it works out well for you.
Bob
In article <sparks-2107...@slc103h.modem.xmission.com>,
spa...@campfour.win.net (Rich and Dr. Jules) wrote:
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
jshe...@acadiacom.net
Matt Kaarma wrote:
--
http://www.acadiacom.net/jsheldon/thejuke/index.html
http://www.acadiacom.net/jsheldon/index.html
Anthony
>Depends on the local laws and company policies; many high-tech
>companies require an explicit Intellectual Property agreement as a
>condition of employment, that on paper may give them ownership of a
>novel you write on your own computer at home, outside of business
>hours.
I've never seen anything like that. What the agreements really say, in
practice, are that anything you create with company resources belongs to the
company (which would arguably be the case anyway), and that anything that
you create on your own time _that relates to the company's business_ must be
brought to the company's attention, so they can have first crack at buying
it.
>They usually aren't enforced for obvious cases ...
In some jurisdictions, agreements such as you describe would be
unenforceable and contrary to law. Some jurisdictions do not allow you to
sign away all your rights to everything you produce in advance
(fortunately).
I'm not a lawyer; this isn't legal advice.
--
Anthony
Lokari
>I've never seen anything like that.
I have. In my late teens, I worked as a factory grunt. Even in that
unglamorous position they required that I sign an agreement that gave
them ownership of any inventions (or similar things) I made while I
was employed there. The language indicated that it didn't matter if I
did it off the clock with my own resources - they would still own it.
>What the agreements really say, in
>practice, are that anything you create with company resources belongs to the
>company (which would arguably be the case anyway),
And this would seem perfectly fair.
J Greely
>In some jurisdictions, agreements such as you describe would be
>unenforceable and contrary to law.
One of the ones I've personally seen said something to the effect of
"while the law only gives us the right to your stuff if it was done on
our time or our equipment, by signing this you agree to allow us to
review any IP you produce, just in case".
-j
bobs...@my-dejanews.com
contract for their staff photographers which specified that EVERY photo they
took, whether on company time or off, belonged to National Geographic.
Bob
In article <#VvxTnZt9GA.221@upnetnews03>,
"Anthony" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> J Greely wrote in message ...
>
> >Depends on the local laws and company policies; many high-tech
> >companies require an explicit Intellectual Property agreement as a
> >condition of employment, that on paper may give them ownership of a
> >novel you write on your own computer at home, outside of business
> >hours.
>
> I've never seen anything like that. What the agreements really say, in
> practice, are that anything you create with company resources belongs to the
> company (which would arguably be the case anyway), and that anything that
> you create on your own time _that relates to the company's business_ must be
> brought to the company's attention, so they can have first crack at buying
> it.
>
> >They usually aren't enforced for obvious cases ...
>
> In some jurisdictions, agreements such as you describe would be
> unenforceable and contrary to law. Some jurisdictions do not allow you to
> sign away all your rights to everything you produce in advance
> (fortunately).
>
> I'm not a lawyer; this isn't legal advice.
>
> --
> Anthony
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Lokari
>>It is not uncommon for big time professionals to have an assistant actually
>>click the shutter
>Ok, maybe I'm a purist here, and I know that's how some of the
>"big time pros" do it, but if someone else takes a picture of a scene
>I set up, THEY are the photographer of a scene I concieved. When it
>comes to the point that I can't shoot my own photos, I guess I'll find
>a new hobby.
Compare to the movie industry. It's rare that the directory operates
the camera - there's almost always a technician for that job, working
under instructions from the director.
Kyle Cassidy
: > assistant was taking photos as work for hire.
i was recently looking at some william weggman photos of a puppy in the
air and read in the accompanying text that weggman was tossing the puppy
while his assistant snapped the photos, though they're credited to
weggmann -- i also noticed that a lot of nan golden's photos in the ballad
of sexual dependancy have nan herself in them, and although they're
credited to her, she mentions in the back "the hands holding the camera on
pages x, xx, xx, etc" and gives credit to whoever it was.
i'm not an attorney, but i think if i walk onto a david lachappelle set
and he says "could you push that shutter" it's still his photo. after all,
taking a photo is often considerably more than pushing the button. i'd go
for whoever setup the shot...... that's just me though.
kc
Anthony
>Compare to the movie industry. It's rare that the directory operates
>the camera - there's almost always a technician for that job, working
>under instructions from the director.
I believe that the camera operators get a share of the royalties, though
(?).
--
Anthony
hw...@my-dejanews.com
they make copies of the picture if is exceptional,and sell them to stock
photo companies. if your photos are'nt copy righted they are up for grabs,and
alot of labs are on the look out for pictures.As far as National Geographics
go I dont know thier contracts are with there staff. I use to shoot for a
magazine,the only time we had to give up photos is when we were on
assignment.On our own time the pictures we took were our own,we never had to
turn them into the editor. If I send a picture in to contests etc.I stamp
them copy righted,if they want them they buy the rights and the negatives.You
just have to be careful if your a serious photographer. n article
bobs...@my-dejanews.com
hw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> IWhether you realise it or not,when you have film developed at a local store
> they make copies of the picture if is exceptional,and sell them to stock
> photo companies. if your photos are'nt copy righted they are up for grabs,and
> alot of labs are on the look out for pictures.As far as National Geographics
> go I dont know thier contracts are with there staff. I use to shoot for a
> magazine,the only time we had to give up photos is when we were on
> assignment.On our own time the pictures we took were our own,we never had to
> turn them into the editor. If I send a picture in to contests etc.I stamp
> them copy righted,if they want them they buy the rights and the negatives.You
> just have to be careful if your a serious photographer.
In a word, bullshit!
Copyright is automatic and begins when you click the shutter. If a lab ever
did what you suggest, and I doubt that any lab would, you could own the lab.
Bob
Rich and Dr. Jules
insisted that he set up the shot and that since it was in his "collection"
that it belonged to him. I distinctly remember setting this up so how do
you argue with that! He's trying to make a go of making a living at this
and I reminded him of what it means to be professional. I think he will
think twice about doing this in the future. For me, as I posted earlier
it's been a learning experience not only in how I handle my images but in
who I take along on these trips!
If anyone's interested...check out the august issue (shark on cover) of
Outside magazine under "dispatches"...2 page photo.
thanks to all who replied...
pixi
previously written contract stating that you were only shooting "for" an
individual or firm they have a weak arguement in claiming ownership of the
resultant photos if that wasn't specified.
I know there are plenty who will debate this, but I suggest you ask pros in
the biz who have actual experience in both work for hire and copyright
licensing of widely published work. Alot of things go on in minor
productions that are not exactly "kosher" that would create serious probs
for widely published/marketed ones.
Michael
>
> IWhether you realise it or not,when you have film developed at a local store
> they make copies of the picture if is exceptional,and sell them to stock
> photo companies. if your photos are'nt copy righted they are up for grabs,and
> alot of labs are on the look out for pictures.As far as National Geographics
> go I dont know thier contracts are with there staff. I use to shoot for a
> magazine,the only time we had to give up photos is when we were on
> assignment.On our own time the pictures we took were our own,we never had to
> turn them into the editor. If I send a picture in to contests etc.I stamp
> them copy righted,if they want them they buy the rights and the negatives.You
> > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> >
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
selling customer photos they are looking for a law suit against them.
pixi
The original poster, as I remember, was "working with" another
photographer. The poster claimed that he shot the photo on the other's
equipment (camera and film) and that he (the poster) also did the setup for
the shot. The other fellow, I assume also took shots and provided the
equipment/camera and film and the poster was working with the owner of the
camera at the moment he took the shot without an explicit agreement.
Primarily, because he was not using his own or rented equipment he lost
*physical* posession of "his" shots. Now that the photo was obviously
profitable to the camera owner, and author of other frames on the same roll
of film, I assume, there is this question of "who's photo it was/is. Even
if the camera owner agrees at a later time to share to profits, the poster
needs to know what policy/laws protect him. But first of all, he needs to
know if he can legally claim ownership of the image in the first place.
Here is a question; could the camera/film owner have destroyed the whole
roll of film without liability, even if the poster told him verbally, I am
being paid xxx to take photos of this setup? I think so, unless he agreed
explicitly to provide the equipment and film previously, they are his
property, regardless of what is on them. But he doesn't necessarily have
the rights to sell their contents because the phyical medium is his
property.
I think everyone agrees that the ethical thing to do would be to share the
profits without a lot of red tape. This would be *if* the guy who sold the
image really believed he did not take the shot himself. I was never clear
on whether this was a project shoot or just building stock. Did they know
there was a potential buyer for the work. If so, why was there no
clarification made before the shoot as to who owned the images?
** Copyright laws have changed too much to make any assumptions based on
ethics or personal beliefs.
This is just another case to illustrate that we really should plan for
ownership issues before the fact, especially if there are other parties
involved in the creation of the work**
#1 - Use your own film and your own/or rented camera, unless you want to
deal with these issues again. Without some prior agreement, whoever owns
the film/camera is the one who is going to leave the shoot with it.
Without a lot of documentation, you will have one huge job even proving
that you released the shutter, assuming that would be enough to claim
ownership.
Jerry Cullingford
>
>#1 - Use your own film and your own/or rented camera, unless you want to
>deal with these issues again. Without some prior agreement, whoever owns
>the film/camera is the one who is going to leave the shoot with it.
>Without a lot of documentation, you will have one huge job even proving
>that you released the shutter, assuming that would be enough to claim
>ownership.
According to an old photo book of mine, in the UK, copyright of a picture
belongs to whoever owned the film at the time the picture was taken.
Whether that's still true today, or in other countries, I don't know -
but it does sound reasonably sensible for common cases - holiday pictures
or work-for-hire - and simpler to verify.
--
_|_ Jerry Cullingford jerry.cu...@ffei.co.uk (Work)
/ | Fujifilm Electronic Imaging j...@selune.demon.co.uk (Home)
\_|_ Hemel Hempstead, UK PGP key at www.selune.demon.co.uk
\__/ (Speaking only for myself and not the company unless otherwise stated)
Tom Rittenhouse
:
: A couple of times photos taken at my workshops have ended up in print. I
: hired the model, I posed her, I set up the background and props, and I set up
: the lighting. The "photographer" only had to stand in the right place and
: click the shutter. So is it his photo? Hardly.
And people pay you to take your workshops? Ethics are not your strong
point are they, Bob?
--
Graywolf (Tom Rittenhouse)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gudzinowicz
Tom Rittenhouse <t...@tinker.graywolf.com> writes:
>bobs...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>:
>: A couple of times photos taken at my workshops have ended up in print.
>I
>: hired the model, I posed her, I set up the background and props, and I set
>: click the shutter. So is it his photo? Hardly.
>:
>And people pay you to take your workshops? Ethics are not your strong
>point are they, Bob?
If someone "sets up" the shot (for instance, an art director), the
copyright may very well belong to the "creative" person, and not the
photographer. Copyright is tied to creative elements, not to the act of
pushing a shutter button. Likewise, the practice of "shooting over the
shoulder" of a photographer who has set up a shot has been found to be
infringing on copyright.
Gerald Sylvester
>IWhether you realise it or not,when you have film developed at a local store
>they make copies of the picture if is exceptional,and sell them to stock
>photo companies. if your photos are'nt copy righted they are up for grabs,and
this is *absolutely* wrong. You're copyright is created upon creation
of the image (ie snapping the shutter). You do not have to do anything
else. You can register this copyright which further protects you/your
image but this is not required to be minimally protected.
If they used your image without your permission (absolutely make
sure it is yours....I've seen one shot so close to mine that it would
take you 2 good looks to notice....really strange) then you have a couple
of choices. If it is a small infringement like just a sample picture
in their store, then you might want to just charge them say triple
what you'd normally charge. Just send them a bill and a small explanation.
If they don't go for it, then go to the 2nd option. Pay a lawyer a small
fee to write a nasty letter demanding payment plus lawyers fees. Copyright
(federal) law clearly states that all legal fees are paid by the defendent
if they lose whcih is just about always since the questions is "Did you
use the photo without permission?"
>> I don't know if they still use it, but National Geographic used to have a
>> contract for their staff photographers which specified that EVERY photo they
>> took, whether on company time or off, belonged to National Geographic.
that woudl really surprise me since the photographers would then have to
solely make their money through NG. The other thing is that NG probably
has very few staff photog's and does everything freelance or on assignment
which is very different than staff.
Gerald Sylvester
Tom Rittenhouse
:
When you are paying that individual to teach you how to set up
the shots?
Actually, you will find that in lack of evidence otherwise
(such as a written contract)
that the person pushing the button owns the copyright.
If who pushed the button is indeterminatable, then who possesses
the original film would probably be found to be the owner.
By your thinking, the stylist would be the owner. But, I think
that one could show that the instant that the picture is taken
has a high degree of influence on the artistic merit of the
photograph in question. At least HCB would have said so.
In short if you took Mr Shell's workshop, a court would probably
find that you owned the copyright to the photos that you took,
unless you had signed an agreement otherwise prior to paying for
the workshop.
Shooting over the shoulder of any pro who knows is business is
going to violate clauses in his contract, and he will be able to
hold his client liable.
In the film situation someone had mentioned earlier in this thread,
you can bet that the cinematographers had signed work for hire
contracts. However, the entertainment film industry in the US is
almost religious about giving credits.
Copyright law used to be very hard to figure out. The current
law, however, is very clear. In absence of proof otherwise, the
person who took the photograph is the copyright owner.
In the original poster's case going by what he has said it is
going to be hard to prove that he, in fact, took the photograph
in question.
Michael Gudzinowicz
Tom Rittenhouse <t...@tinker.graywolf.com> writes:
>Michael Gudzinowicz (bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>:
>: Tom Rittenhouse <t...@tinker.graywolf.com> writes:
>:
>: >bobs...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>: >:
>: >: A couple of times photos taken at my workshops have ended up in print.
>
>: >I
>: >: hired the model, I posed her, I set up the background and props, and I s
>
>: >:
>: >And people pay you to take your workshops? Ethics are not your strong
>: >point are they, Bob?
>:
>: Just wondering what your point is...
>:
>: If someone "sets up" the shot (for instance, an art director), the
>: copyright may very well belong to the "creative" person, and not the
>: photographer. Copyright is tied to creative elements, not to the act of
>: pushing a shutter button. Likewise, the practice of "shooting over the
>: shoulder" of a photographer who has set up a shot has been found to be
>: infringing on copyright.
>When you are paying that individual to teach you how to set up
>the shots?
imply a work for hire situation.
If you paid an instructor for a course, you don't have a copyright
interest in course materials if you photographed their slides during a
presentation.
As someone pointed out via email, using "set up" workshop photos for
commercial purposes (and portfolios fall into that category) without a
model release for that purpose may be considered a theft of services as
well.
>Actually, you will find that in lack of evidence otherwise
>(such as a written contract)
>that the person pushing the button owns the copyright.
defined and witnesses are present.
>If who pushed the button is indeterminatable, then who possesses
>the original film would probably be found to be the owner.
>
>By your thinking, the stylist would be the owner. But, I think
>that one could show that the instant that the picture is taken
>has a high degree of influence on the artistic merit of the
>photograph in question. At least HCB would have said so.
which they have set up for the photographer. Although in a different
medium, the photographer is making a derived work, and the terms are
usually well defined in writing. If he retains copyright it is only for
the use of his photo to the degree that he can prevent its unauthorized
use. However, in the absence of a written agreement, he can't show
(publish) it without violating the original copyright. If it is used for
commercial purposes w/o a written contract, there are other problems such
as trademark violations for some products, failure to have releases, etc.
That isn't a common occurance, but the case law reflects that.
>In short if you took Mr Shell's workshop, a court would probably
>find that you owned the copyright to the photos that you took,
>unless you had signed an agreement otherwise prior to paying for
>the workshop.
work doesn't carry the necessary element of originality.
It is a copy, and infringes.
One can use the photos for the purpose for which they are intended -
learning tools - and that use is granted by an implied contract since the
instructor permitted them to be taken.
>Shooting over the shoulder of any pro who knows is business is
>going to violate clauses in his contract, and he will be able to
>hold his client liable.
copyright suit, an action for theft of services, etc.
>In the film situation someone had mentioned earlier in this thread,
>you can bet that the cinematographers had signed work for hire
>contracts. However, the entertainment film industry in the US is
>almost religious about giving credits.
>
>Copyright law used to be very hard to figure out. The current
>law, however, is very clear. In absence of proof otherwise, the
>person who took the photograph is the copyright owner.
paintings and you published them without written permission, it is
infringment. If you duplicated the _unique creative elements_ of a photo
which you had seen in another one which you set up and took, the courts
have already ruled that is infringment, though the photo isn't identical
to the original.
>In the original poster's case going by what he has said it is
>going to be hard to prove that he, in fact, took the photograph
>in question.
with witnesses or tape the conversation in which he discusses the
situation which led to the photo, rather than confronting them with a
charge of infringment. BTW, if the copyright "problem" were resolved in
the poster's favor, he still couldn't do anything with the photo without a
release from the other photographer who was in the photo. Unless the
situation was just a "misunderstanding", there's little hope of a
release. If he had obtained one when he should have, there might be a
different ending to the saga.
Ruben Sanchez
>
> Michael Gudzinowicz (bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> :
> : Tom Rittenhouse <t...@tinker.graywolf.com> writes:
> :
> : >bobs...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> : >:
> : >: A couple of times photos taken at my workshops have ended up in print.
> : >I
> : >: the lighting. The "photographer" only had to stand in the right place and
> : >: click the shutter. So is it his photo? Hardly.
> : >:
> : >And people pay you to take your workshops? Ethics are not your strong
> : >point are they, Bob?
> :
Sorry to Bob,
But unless the photographers sign a release giving ALL the photographic
rights to the person who sets up a photo,such as the person who
organizes the workshop, the Rights will always belong to the
photographer. Yes, Bob hired the models, set up the lighting, props,
etc., but he charged the photographers money to attend his workshop.
Thus, each photographer bought and paid for ALL RIGHTS and all
photographs belong to the individual photographer to do as they please,
such as publishing them in magazines.
In the commercial world, all photographs taken always belongs to the
photographer unless there is a written contract stating otherwise. This
is to prevent the arguement such as, "the director set up the shot so we
don't have to pay the photographer his full fee." It doesn't matter who
came up with the idea, who set up the shot, who set up the lighting,
etc., it's who took the photograph. All professional photographers know
this and enforce it when they hire out to do a job.
Working for a magazine is different and all professional photographers
work out a contract IN ADVANCE, as to who owns what "rights" to the
photographs. I'm not aware of any copyright problems in todays
magazines.
In the future, if you know of a local photo lab or an office copy center
that stole your photographs, you can file suit against them for
copyright violations. IT IS A VERY LARGE PENALTY, if they are found to
have violated COPYRIGHT LAWS. As long as you are in possesion of the
film or negatives and you have not signed away the rights to your
photographs, the copyrights will always belong to the photographer. So,
enforce your rights if someone uses your photographs.
R Sanchez
Patrick White
>hw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> IWhether you realise it or not,when you have film developed at a local store
>> they make copies of the picture if is exceptional,and sell them to stock
>> photo companies. if your photos are'nt copy righted they are up for grabs,and
>You are wrong, copyright belongs to the photographer. If a lab is
>selling customer photos they are looking for a law suit against them.
A lawsuit, yes. But, would it be _worthwhile_ to even file one?
Isn't there some limit on what kinds of damages one can collect if the
shot is unregistered (which in such a case is true). I thought the limit was
only what income was lost, which would amount to how much they got paid for the
shot and any profits from it.
I can't imagine that would ammount to much.. perhaps not even the cost
of filing the lawsuit.
--
Pat White (work: patbob...@sequent.com, (503) 578-3463)
Internet==Net of 1000 lies. (adapted from Verner Vinge's
_A Fire Upon The Deep_)
Tom Rittenhouse
: imply a work for hire situation.
: If you paid an instructor for a course, you don't have a copyright
: interest in course materials if you photographed their slides during a
: presentation.
:
: As someone pointed out via email, using "set up" workshop photos for
: commercial purposes (and portfolios fall into that category) without a
: model release for that purpose may be considered a theft of services as
: well.
: The illustrator and ad people have the original copyright on their design
: medium, the photographer is making a derived work, and the terms are
: usually well defined in writing. If he retains copyright it is only for
: the use of his photo to the degree that he can prevent its unauthorized
: use. However, in the absence of a written agreement, he can't show
: (publish) it without violating the original copyright. If it is used for
: commercial purposes w/o a written contract, there are other problems such
: as trademark violations for some products, failure to have releases, etc.
: That isn't a common occurance, but the case law reflects that.
: Really... if you were asked to provide an artist with slides of their
: infringment. If you duplicated the _unique creative elements_ of a photo
: which you had seen in another one which you set up and took, the courts
: have already ruled that is infringment, though the photo isn't identical
: to the original.
Sir: in all the cases quoted above there is either a written agreement
modifying the copyright situation, or a property question.
Lets use your last example, since I have experience in this
area. The original work, the paintings are the artist's property
by common law and copyright law. To use reproductions of them
I need a property release from the artist. The photographs
(slides) are my property by copyright. For the artist to use
the slides she needs an assignment of copyright from me, as I
would to use the paintings for any commercial purpose. I could
use the slides for my portfolio or to illustrate an article about
the author without violating her copyright. "I" would get a
release for such use as a courtesy and for ethical reasons in
such a case.
You seem to be confused about the differences between copyright
an property rights. Your court case above may be correct, or it
may have been decided under the old copyright law which was very
confusing. And, please note, photos taken prior to the new law going
into effect are covered under the old law. One of the problems
with the old law was that much of it was determined by various
contradictory court decisions. Results depended more on how
good your lawyer was than what the law said.
Gary Cole
>In <35BBCD...@frontiernet.net> Michael <mmi...@frontiernet.net> writes:
>>hw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>> IWhether you realise it or not,when you have film developed at a local store
>>> they make copies of the picture if is exceptional,and sell them to stock
>>> photo companies. if your photos are'nt copy righted they are up for grabs,and
>>>...
>>You are wrong, copyright belongs to the photographer. If a lab is
>>selling customer photos they are looking for a law suit against them.
>
> A lawsuit, yes. But, would it be _worthwhile_ to even file one?
>
> Isn't there some limit on what kinds of damages one can collect if the
>shot is unregistered (which in such a case is true). I thought the limit was
>only what income was lost, which would amount to how much they got paid for the
>shot and any profits from it.
> I can't imagine that would ammount to much.. perhaps not even the cost
>of filing the lawsuit.
I recently had the same experience but not form someone selling my
work but a model posting them on a website without my permission. My
attorney told me that even though she bought the images from me, it
did not give her the right to post them on the internet without my
permission. Copyright remains with the photographer from the time you
create the image until 50 years from your death, if your estate does
ot re-new the copyright. While it is good to file for an official
copyright, you have three years from the time of the copyright
infringement to do so. We did not have to go to court because we
figured the model and the website owner wouldn't be able to pay when
we won. We did get the images removed and the website owner dropped by
his server. Our lawsuit would have involved the server as well since
we informed them of the infraction and at first they didn't do
anything about it. If a lab is selling your work, you can sue and you
WILL win. Just passing on a little experience I had.
Michael Gudzinowicz
Ruben Sanchez <rsa...@connecti.com> writes:
>>Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael Gudzinowicz (bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>>> :
>>> : Tom Rittenhouse <t...@tinker.graywolf.com> writes:
>>> :
>>> : >bobs...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>> : >:
>>> : >: A couple of times photos taken at my workshops have ended up in print
>>> : >: hired the model, I posed her, I set up the background and props, and
>>> : >: the lighting. The "photographer" only had to stand in the right plac
>>> : >: click the shutter. So is it his photo? Hardly.
>>> : >:
>>> : >And people pay you to take your workshops? Ethics are not your strong
>>> : >point are they, Bob?
>>> :
>>
>>Sorry to Bob,
>>
>>But unless the photographers sign a release giving ALL the photographic
>>rights to the person who sets up a photo,such as the person who
>>organizes the workshop, the Rights will always belong to the
>>photographer. Yes, Bob hired the models, set up the lighting, props,
>>etc., but he charged the photographers money to attend his workshop.
>>Thus, each photographer bought and paid for ALL RIGHTS and all
>>photographs belong to the individual photographer to do as they please,
>>such as publishing them in magazines.
That is incorrect. As soon as the workshop teacher takes the Polaroid to
check lighting, he _solely_ has copyright to that shot. If others put
their cameras on the same tripod to reproduce the shot, they are making
_copies_ of the set up shot. Copyright protects originality, and a copy,
even if altered to some degree, is still a copy and the copier is not
permitted to have any copyright interest in the original based on their
copy.
Also, there are very strict requirements to establish a work for hire
situation - a written agreement transfering copyright or an employment
contract with similar stipulations. Paying someone to teach a course, or
paying a photographer to take a photo which you intend to duplicate is
insufficient to establish that relationship.
>>In the commercial world, all photographs taken always belongs to the
>>photographer unless there is a written contract stating otherwise. This
>>is to prevent the arguement such as, "the director set up the shot so we
>>don't have to pay the photographer his full fee." It doesn't matter who
>>came up with the idea, who set up the shot, who set up the lighting,
>>etc., it's who took the photograph. All professional photographers know
>>this and enforce it when they hire out to do a job.
setup _copies_ and illustration provided by the ad agency which has been
set up by the director, the illustration's copyright supercedes any other
interest. As you say, it would be worked out in advance.
>>Working for a magazine is different and all professional photographers
>>work out a contract IN ADVANCE, as to who owns what "rights" to the
>>photographs. I'm not aware of any copyright problems in todays
>>magazines.
>>
>>In the future, if you know of a local photo lab or an office copy center
>>that stole your photographs, you can file suit against them for
>>copyright violations. IT IS A VERY LARGE PENALTY, if they are found to
>>have violated COPYRIGHT LAWS. As long as you are in possesion of the
>>film or negatives and you have not signed away the rights to your
>>photographs, the copyrights will always belong to the photographer. So,
>>enforce your rights if someone uses your photographs.
another photo, illustration, or painting, or if even you set up a photo to
copy a well known image (your set up shot almost identical to copyrighted
material), you do not have any copyrigth interest in it - it belongs to
the person whose creativity and originality produced it.
BTW, in the USA, if you _register_ a copyright for work in which you have
intentionally duplicated an image which is copyrighted, it is not only
civil infringment but also a criminal offense (receiving benefit by filing
a false document with the federal government).
Michael Gudzinowicz
Tom Rittenhouse <t...@tinker.graywolf.com> writes:
[edit - previous quotes placed at end - mjg]
>Sir: in all the cases quoted above there is either a written agreement
>modifying the copyright situation, or a property question.
>Lets use your last example, since I have experience in this
>area. The original work, the paintings are the artist's property
>by common law and copyright law. To use reproductions of them
>I need a property release from the artist. The photographs
>(slides) are my property by copyright. For the artist to use
>the slides she needs an assignment of copyright from me, as I
>would to use the paintings for any commercial purpose. I could
>use the slides for my portfolio or to illustrate an article about
>the author without violating her copyright. "I" would get a
>release for such use as a courtesy and for ethical reasons in
>such a case.
Your photographs are _copies_, and as such do not meet the minimum
criteria of originality to qualify for copyright protection.
There is _no difference_ between the situation described, or someone
dropping off a photo at a lab for a copy or for a reprint from a
negative. The lab has no copt rights, nor in the absence of a contract,
can they restrict the person's use of the image they created and supplied
to the _copier_.
Furthermore, for the lab or the copier of the painting to display the
print or use it in any way in the absence of a written copyright assignemt
is infingement.
If the copier registers the copyright for their images copied from other
sources, the copyright is not only invalid, but fraudulent, and the person
can face criminal prosecution.
The artist does not require any copyright assignment from the copier,
since the copier is barred by law from holding a copyright on work copied
from the original, unless there is a written assignment (complete or
limited) to the copier from the original copyright holder.
If such an assignment is provided for limited use (say, the publication in
an article), the copyright for the article may protect the painter's image
in an infringment suit. For instance, an infringer could produce posters
of a painting from the original, slides or from an article or book print.
Since the image (intellectual property) is owned by the artist, only the
artist can recover damages.
You can secure some control over the copies or slides by a written
contract which defines how your _property_ (the physical slides) may be
used and what the fee schedule is. If the artist violates it, the remedy
is a suit on the contract - _not_ on any claimed copyright. Nothing would
prevent the artist from using slides provided by another.
>You seem to be confused about the differences between copyright
>an property rights. Your court case above may be correct, or it
>may have been decided under the old copyright law which was very
>confusing. And, please note, photos taken prior to the new law going
>into effect are covered under the old law. One of the problems
>with the old law was that much of it was determined by various
>contradictory court decisions. Results depended more on how
>good your lawyer was than what the law said.
for books I've written and taught workshops not related to photography,
but in which copyright law and protection of artists' rights were primary
concerns.
The differences in the old and new laws for the most part relate to
duration and renewal, notice, and the effect of notice or lack thereof.
Getting back to the Shell workshop situation, if he set up the shot and
checked the Polaroid, the photos taken in his "tripod holes" by others are
considered _copies_ by the US Supreme Court.
Of course, if _very_ different viewpoints are used so that the photos
don't resemble one another, the photographer has copyright in the absence
of a written contract. However, if a model is photographed, he had better
get a release before using them for anything.
I'm astonished that photographers who claim the be "ethical", would even
suggest that they can display or publish copies they have made of
another's original work without a limited written assignment of copyright.
That is exactly the reprehensible infringing practice in which some
photolabs have engaged, though they would never claim that their
non-existent copyright would prevent the original artist from using the
prints they provided.
Copyright protection is granted to an artist, phtographer, writer, etc.
original works, not copies thereof. Just because one pushed a shutter
release to make the _copy_ doesn't give them rights, nor does enlarging a
negative in a commercial lab, nor pushing the button on a Xerox machine to
copy someone else's published poem.
the beginning of previous qouted post:
Istvan Zsolt Kovacs
I'm relatively newbie in the slide photography, having a growing
collection of shots. :)
My question: what is the best way to store/preserve slide
pictures (mounted/unmounted) ?
Thank you!
Istvan
--
\~"~/
(o o)
_________oO0_(~)_0Oo____________
http://www.kom.auc.dk/~istvan
__________________________
"There is nothing in the world
that's worth giving up
that you've already achieved"
Ashley Rice
_________ooO_____Ooo____________
( )_/ \_( )
O)/ \(O
Harald Finster
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm relatively newbie in the slide photography, having a growing
> collection of shots. :)
> My question: what is the best way to store/preserve slide
> pictures (mounted/unmounted) ?
>
Hi,
some hints, which might be helpful:
Store the slides as dry and cool as possible.
For mounted slides:
If you use glasses, clean them before mounting.
Do not use mounts, which are airtight.
In my experience GePe mounts are quite save.
I have never experienced any problems with fungus
or something similar within the last 20 years with
this type of mounts.
Just a few thoughts
Harald
--
Dr. Ing. Harald Finster ave Verkehrs- und Informationstechnik GmbH
mul...@selway.umt.edu
Istvan Zsolt Kovacs <ist...@kom.auc.dk> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm relatively newbie in the slide photography, having a growing
> collection of shots. :)
> My question: what is the best way to store/preserve slide
> pictures (mounted/unmounted) ?
>
Store them in a cool, dark, place, ideally with about 20%-30% relative
humidity. Unprojected Kodachrome will last much better than any other slide
film, and much better than any color negatives or ordinary color prints. If
stored in the dark, the first barely visible color changes should take about
100 years to manifest themselves.
Kodachrome fades quite badly when projected, so if you expect to project a
particular image very much, make a duplicate on Ektachrome or Fujichrome and
project that. 40 years later, when the duplicate has faded away, make another
duplicate for projection.
--Chris mu...@selway.umt.edu
> Thank you!
>
> Istvan
>
> --
> \~"~/
> (o o)
> _________oO0_(~)_0Oo____________
> http://www.kom.auc.dk/~istvan
> __________________________
> "There is nothing in the world
> that's worth giving up
> that you've already achieved"
> Ashley Rice
> _________ooO_____Ooo____________
> ( )_/ \_( )
> O)/ \(O
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Anthony
>The language indicated that it didn't matter if I
>did it off the clock with my own resources - they would still own it.
That would certainly be a challenge to enforce.
>And this would seem perfectly fair.
I agree. Signing everything you do away in advance is a bit extreme,
though, and I speculate that it is unenforceable in some jurisdictions.
--
Anthony
Istvan Zsolt Kovacs
Being my first photo 'exhibition' I appreciate all the suggestions.
Please feel free to comment!
Thank you!
http://www.kom.auc.dk/~istvan/photos.html
Istvan Kovacs
Istvan Zsolt Kovacs
Hi!
What I was affraid of it happened: a lots of JavaScript errors on my photo
page, though from my network (Unix and win95) it works.
Thanks for all of you who tried visiting my photo page! I will take it off
line and try to fix the bugs. Unfortunately the only way to really test it
is to ask you (people with different browsers and OS) to visit it. Thank
you again!
Hope I'll be back soon,
Istvan Kovacs
Dave Cardinal
without any use of employer resources is typically their own. It is very
difficult to ever sign this right away in this state at least!
Anthony wrote in message <6qphl0$s...@news.microsoft.com>...
Istvan Zsolt Kovacs
Hi!
My photo pages are on-line again:) Please take a look!
On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Istvan Zsolt Kovacs wrote:>
>
> Being my first photo 'exhibition' I appreciate all the suggestions.
> Please feel free to comment!
> Thank you!
http://www.cpk.auc.dk/~istvan/photos.html
Istvan Kovacs
--
\~"~/
(o o)
_________oO0_(~)_0Oo____________
Istvan Zsolt Kovacs
Hi!
My photo pages are on-line again:) Please take a look,
and feel free to comment!
--
\~"~/
(o o)
_________oO0_(~)_0Oo____________
Laren Dart
Your home page comes up okay, though.
Try again, Istvan. :-)
On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 14:51:51 GMT, Istvan Zsolt Kovacs
<ist...@kom.auc.dk> wrote:
>..... My photo pages are on-line again:) Please take a look,
>
> http://www.cpk.auc.dk/~istvan/photos.html
>
> Istvan Kovacs
--
Larry
Website: The Anything Box at
http://www.surfnetusa.com/ldart
Photography, short stories, humor
Tony Karp
>
> Hi!
> My photo pages are on-line again:) Please take a look,
> and feel free to comment!
> Thank you!
>
>
> http://www.cpk.auc.dk/~istvan/photos.html
This page seems to generate a multitude of JavaScript errors (Netscape 4.04).
Why do you need JavaScript to display your photos?
Tony Karp, TLC Systems Corp tk...@tlc-systems.com
Visit our web sites:
Techno-Impressionist Museum: http://www.techno-impressionist.com
TLC Systems: http://www.tlc-systems.com
Web-Scope (tm) statistics: http://www.web-scope.com
NAOMI JOHNSON
Impossible to connect to.
Naomi
Tony Karp wrote in message <35f53ad2...@enews.newsguy.com>...