Whose Copyright is it, anyway?
Arthur Entlich
comments made by photographers about digital manipulation experts not
deserving of copyright revenues a bit arrogant.
I work in both teh photographic and digital art media. Sometimes I take a
perfectly useless image and make it have value by the digital work I do
with it. Sometimes the source material was much easier and less time
consuming to get than the digital work or image that develops from it.
Luckily, in most cases, the work I start with is my own to begin with, so
I don't have to write long contracts or agreements with myself, but that
is not the point.
When a photographer takes a picture of a car does he get permission or pay
the cars designer for use of that car in his/her image? The designer
probably spent a lot more time and energy creating the model that car was
developed from, then the photographer did "snapping" a picture of it.
Some common sense needs to prevail here. I find it really interesting
that high and mighty photographer thinks his/her skills are the only ones
which have valid intellectual property or vision, to receive copyright and
that someone (usually a digital ARTIST) who is not only talented, with a
trained eye, but also has developed or educated themselves in teh
technique of digital manipulation, is only some paid hack.
This is the sort of arrogance which really annoys me. If a clown's makeup
can be trademarked, why shouldn't a clown who is photographed be
compensated in a manner beyond a modeling fee?
I certainly don't think a dust or scratch correction deserves a share of
teh copyright, as this is more skill than art, but someone who uses there
artistic vision should receive recognition.
I have a question... if a protographer takes a photograph that was
directed by an AD, only offering this "photographic skills" and not his
"vision" does he lose the copyright? Maybe he should.
Does the performer of a musical composition not own the copyright of the
performance? When something "new" is created that was not previously
there, via colaboration or singly, that is new intellectual property, and
a new copyright is needed, in my view.
As I said before, I am not speaking of the "Bill Gates" concept of "we
digitized this image, and therefore we now own the digital copyright
because we cleaned up the dust and boosted the color".
Or how about this... I buy a bunch of royalty free images and use them to
create a new image by combining them to make a totally new statement and
piece of art... can I copyright it? From the contracts I have read, in
most cases the answer is yes.
Slightly different subject:
I have received a response from the Canadian feds concerning the new blank
media tax. I would be happy to send a copy to anyone who asks. It is
about two typewritten pages (I will send it by e-mail) and explains the
system as it currently stands.
Knowing some people aren't gonna like what I had to say...
Art
------------------------------------------------------------------
For Information on Stock Photography Workshops
Visit The STOCKPHOTO Network Web Site => http://www.stockphoto.net
------------------------------------------------------------------
D Barr
>Luckily, in most cases, the work I start with is my own to begin with, so
>I don't have to write long contracts or agreements with myself, but that
>is not the point.
>
Art this is the great advantage we photographers have in working with
digital imaging, an enormous supply of images. We have the potential to
sell new images that combine elements from more than one picture with
colour and texture created in the computer. The computer is a versatile
tool well worth the effort of learning how to use.
Some photographers will decide, like Peter Dean, that their time is better
spent behind the camera. To share in the market of digital images these
photographers will have to strike up a relationship with a digital artist
and obviously some kind of shared royalty would be in order. This isn't so
different from sharing your royalty with an agency that looks after
marketing while the photographer concentrates on making images.
If you look at the composite picture on any of the Photoshop packaging you
will see a good example of images that are greater than the sum of their
parts.
Perhaps this points out the necessity of clip art. Creative people who
work in the digital media need royalty free materials to work with.
Imagine if the manufacturer of fine art supplies were to assume a portion
of a paintings copyright because they had produced the paint that had such
rich colour or brushes capable of such fine detail!
When supplying images to a client, who incorporates them into their art,
the photographers must price their work according to the importance of the
photograph as an element of the finished digital image. The issue of
copyright will also be reflected in the price we charge for the image.
Often traditional stock will be too expensive when parts of several images
are to be combined in a single digital picture.
In the case of the Photoshop 4 packaging the photograph of the picture
frame and close up of an eye are important details but the presentation is
such that the royalty for that image clearly belongs more to the digital
artist than the photographer.
Rather than ruffle my feathers Art I think you make a few salient points.
David Barr
"Photobar" Agricultural Stock Photography
Please take a moment to visit our site.
http://www.photobar.com
Industrial page http://www.photobar.com/industry.html
Agricultural stock pictures. Location
and studio assignment photography.
519 846 8827 call or
email for information phot...@photobar.com
Bob Croxford
and revenues going to the original photographer.
Any photographer who allows this is not rating their skills highly enough.
A few years ago I got up early and made a two hour drive before dawn. I had
timed my arrival at a fishing harbour for high tide at first light. I made a
few pictures using my skill and judgment on choice of viewpoint, lens etc. The
exposure times were probably no more than 1/60th of a second.
One of these pictures was published locally. About a year later the local
council published a series of illustrated guides. One of these guides had a
cover which was a watercolour painting of my photograph. Although the
watercolour artist had taken much longer than 1/60th of a second to paint it,
the PICTURE was still my copyright. (The client settled my fee without
question). Even if the artist had more experience than me and had taken weeks
to paint the picture it would still have been a breach of my copyright.
I see no difference between this story and your examples of digital artists.
It is completely irrelevent how good the original photograph is or how much
work is done on it. Copyright is too valuable a RIGHT to give up.
Just my .14 Euros worth
Bob Croxford
D Barr
>and revenues going to the original photographer.
>
>Any photographer who allows this is not rating their skills highly enough.
>
>A few years ago I got up early and made a two hour drive before dawn. I had
>timed my arrival at a fishing harbour for high tide at first light. I made a
>few pictures using my skill and judgment on choice of viewpoint, lens etc. The
>exposure times were probably no more than 1/60th of a second.
>
>One of these pictures was published locally. About a year later the local
>council published a series of illustrated guides. One of these guides had a
>cover which was a watercolour painting of my photograph. Although the
>watercolour artist had taken much longer than 1/60th of a second to paint it,
>the PICTURE was still my copyright. (The client settled my fee without
>question). Even if the artist had more experience than me and had taken weeks
>to paint the picture it would still have been a breach of my copyright.
>
>I see no difference between this story and your examples of digital artists.
>work is done on it. Copyright is too valuable a RIGHT to give up.
Bob you will notice in my posting that I stated:
When supplying images to a client, who incorporates them into their art,
the photographers must price their work according to the importance of the
photograph as an element of the finished digital image. The issue of
copyright will also be reflected in the price we charge for the image.
There will be times when, rightly, the copyright remains with the photographer.
Someone using the watercolour technique in Photoshop or using your
photograph to copy for a painting is copyright infringement and you should
be compensated.
There will also be times when the technique, as in the case of the
Photoshop packaging, uses so much derivative from the original as to create
a new work.
It is the responsibility of the digital artist to make arrangements for
proper license of your work to be used in his new image. If you are
uncomfortable with this arrangement then you must pass on the sale. At no
time would I suggest that people have any right to use any of your pictures
in whole or in part without your prior consent.
If for instance you had a picture of an old MG sports car and you licensed
the picture for a magazine you'd know how to price it. Another scenario
might be a magazine cover depicting the racing industry over the last fifty
years and in a composite image perhaps the only part of your car that would
be used is a section of one spoked wheel,
obviously this would still require a fee for license but in this latter
case the composite picture has little recognizable element to tie it to
your original and the digital artist might want to resell the image he
created. You could of course also enter an agreement to allow the use of
your spoked car wheel in exchange for a royalty payment from the magazine
cover and for any subsequent sale. I would anticipate that with the
royalty deal you'd get less up front but retain an interest in the image if
there were future sales.
David
Richard Brandstetter
artist and you cannot use the painting without his OK. Just as he
cannot used it with your OK .you still have the Copyright to you Work
and can sell the rights any way you like, He on the other hand the
artist cannot sell any rights or the painting with out your OK.
Richard Brandstetter
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> One of these pictures was published locally. About a year later the local
> council published a series of illustrated guides. One of these guides had a
> cover which was a watercolour painting of my photograph. Although the
> watercolour artist had taken much longer than 1/60th of a second to paint it,
> the PICTURE was still my copyright. (The client settled my fee without
> question). Even if the artist had more experience than me and had taken weeks
> to paint the picture it would still have been a breach of my copyright.
>
> I see no difference between this story and your examples of digital artists.
> work is done on it. Copyright is too valuable a RIGHT to give up.
>
Richard Brandstetter
(cannot used it with"out" your OK .you still have the Copyright to you
Work)
Bruce Esbin
is solely carrying out the photographers vision then the computer
operator should get a flat fee for his service. If he is a creative
collaborater with the photographer on the final image, then joint
copyright and percentage of sales should be shared.
--
Bruce Esbin
Esbin-Anderson Photography
Richard Brandstetter
Photographer.
If the Photographer sell rights for a Photo for add and his photo is
part of the add, even 95% of the add.
He cannot copy the final image with out the OK of the owner of the Add.
But he is still holder of the copy right of the Photo just not the final
image.unlest there was a understanding that the final image is his .
Richard Brandstetter
Fred Ward
those that have been stated here and elsewhere for years.
>I am probably going to ruffle a few feathers here, but I find some of teh
>comments made by photographers about digital manipulation experts not
>deserving of copyright revenues a bit arrogant...... (etc.)
What we may here going on here is what some digital manipulators wish
was the law and what the law actually is. I had an ongoing online
disagreement of this sort over some weeks a few years ago with Kai
Kruse, who originated and sells Kai's Power Tools. He was part of a
roundtable sponsored by one of the computer magazines and took the
position that a manipulated picture using his software became a new
image and was thus owned and copyrighted by the manipulator. (There is
always a residual bit of misinformation associated with this that seems
to come from art schools where students are told that if you change 20%
of more of an image then it is yours.)
What I told Kai and state again here is that all the wishing about
ownership does not make it so. Fortunately for photographers, the USA
copyright law, which is generally the same around the world (except for
places like China and Russia), states ownership very clearly. When a
picture is made (the shutter is pushed), copyright belongs to the
photographer unless he is a staffer or doing "work for hire." That
original copyright is strengthened before the law by actually
registering the image(s) with the U.S. Copyright Office and receiving a
certificate of copyright.
Derivatives (that manipulators make) are also clearly covered under the
copyright law. Derivatives belong to the original copyright owner. If
someone takes my image and distorts, alters, colors, crops, or changes
it in any way, I then own copyright not only to my original image but
also to the derivative and own rights to whatever it has earned by the
manipulator, plus penalties if my original image was actually registered.
This gets messy when a number of pictures are combined. But there have
been cases about this, and the fees have been split among all copyright
holders.
The message is clear.... if you want to manipulate images, use your own
material, or buy rights to the material of others, or use images that
are totally royalty free for all uses. If you use material that does not
belong to you, there is a very good chance you will end up in court,
where the maximum penalty under the US Copyright Law is $100,000 per infringement.
The youngsters in our midst who do not have the ASMP history or the
history of various versions of the US Copyright Law as background should
read and heed this advice carefully. Plucking pictures from the Internet
and using them as you wish can get you into a heap of trouble.
Fred Ward
Bob Croxford
<<
If for instance you had a picture of an old MG sports car and you licensed
the picture for a magazine you'd know how to price it. Another scenario
might be a magazine cover depicting the racing industry over the last fifty
years and in a composite image perhaps the only part of your car that would
be used is a section of one spoked wheel,
obviously this would still require a fee for license but in this latter
case the composite picture has little recognizable element to tie it to
your original and the digital artist might want to resell the image he
created. You could of course also enter an agreement to allow the use of
your spoked car wheel in exchange for a royalty payment from the magazine
cover and for any subsequent sale. I would anticipate that with the
royalty deal you'd get less up front but retain an interest in the image if
there were future sales.>>
Dear David
Perhaps my earlier posting did not show the true nature of my anger at the
idea that photographers should allow their copyright work to be shared by so-
called digital artists.
Photographers and photographic organisations have fought long and hard to get
photography accepted as an artistic medium and given the same protection as
other arts. I was on the committee of AFAEP, the UK's equivalent of ASMP, many
years ago. I and others campaigned for the old 1956 Copyright Act to be
brought up to date and give photographers equal recognition. I delivered, by
hand, the AFAEP submission to the House of Commons committee which led to the
1988 Act. Thankfully the equal status of photography is now recognised even by
the Berne Convention.
There is so much discussion on this list about copyright issues that I find it
almost bizzare that anyone should consider parting with a share.
Your example of a motor magazine cover is no different than any other picture
use by a client. They pay for that use and if they want to use it again they
pay again. The layout artist has never expected a share of a photographer's
copyright. The digitally created montage is no different than a magazine page
containing many pictures. I would not transfer one iota of extra copyright to
a magazine just because a page layout was a bit more *creative* than usual.
If someone wants to record a Bert Bacharach song Bert Bacharach gets a
royalty. If the recording is a disco synthesizer or a symphony orchestra he
still gets a royalty payment. If its played on a barrel organ he gets a
royalty payment. If someone plays just 8 notes of the song in another
composition he gets a royalty payment. (Anyone rememeber when the Beatles used
a snatch of a Glenn Miller tune in Hey Jude? They paid). Photography is now
the same as all other arts and should be treated as such.
There is so much degradation of copyright issues in the stock picture field
already. We should be fighting tooth and nail to protect what our talents have
created not inventing scenarios to give away a hard won Right. Make no
mistake, it is a right in the same way as the Right to Free Speech. Once you
start losing Rights its a slippery downhill slope.
I will now step down from my soapbox.
Bob Croxford
Lorne McClinton
will be what will finally devlope with stock photos as well.
I think its probably a case of every one being right. There are some
digital works that are very definitely new creative works and there are
lots of others which are simply examples of digital darkroom work.
I also think that with the sheer proliferation of imagery out there from
copywrited and non-copywrited sources it will have to be a pretty obvious
and significant ripoff to be even discovered. You would have to have a
pretty honest client to even think of mentioning that they used the hubcap
Dave Barr mentioned as part of a montage on the history of car racing. I
would suspect most wouldn't even bother to inform you and defy you to prove
them image was in anyway yours.
I must really be getting to be an argumentative curmudgeon in my old age to
get into this but here it goes anyways. There is of course always the
traditional fine art point of view, put forth by Cole Weston among others,
that unless the "artist" completes the whole process, shooting, development
& printing, its not really that artists work but is in fact a
collaboration. (I beleive in Weston's case he implied that this
collaboration would be a degrading process, hence his decision to destroy
his negatives upon retirement rather than donate them to an archives
somewhere).
Digital artists, like photographers before them are going to go through a
lengthy period before their work is accepted in high art circles as art
simply because the art world doesn't quite know what to do with it.
Arguments about originality and methodology being suspect when the actual
work of producing the work is in reality being done by an overgrown
calculator following a mathematical formula. One could publish learned
papers for years and establish an exalted scholastic career on such an
argument. (Arguably you could say all that's been done in painting for the
past 150 years has been in reaction to the impact of the photograph but
thats another Doctoral Dissertation).
Where do you draw the line with copywrite? Actual use of the image or part
of it? The idea? The style? What about shooting your own version of a
photograph you've seen somewhere else?
Still to a large extent everything we do is derivative of someone else's
work. Don't we keep in mind how difficult an image is for someone else to
duplicate when we do our pricing. How long would it really take to
duplicate most cloud photos. How many couples on the beach photos must
exist out there. One could be really argumentative and say the only real
difference between most is the people in the scene and as models know,
people can be readily substituted.
All of photography is to some extent derivative of the work which has gone
before. Much of portraiture style for example, approaches, lighting etc
goes back 500 years to heroic portraiture from the Italian Renaissance. Do
I need to pay a portion of any royalties made from portraits to who ever
owns the rights to the works of Raphael, Agnola Bronzino or Albrect Durer
because my style perhaps suggests similarities?
For example if you look at Eugene Smith's work with Life magazine and put
it in context of the chiaroscuro lighting techniques in paintings by
Rembrandt, Caravagio and Goya and its easy to see that they are a direct
rip off. Take any of the Pietas throw in a dash of lighting by Caravagio
and you have Smith's "Tomoko in the Bath" photo from Minamata.
I would argue that what distinguishes a great photographer from an average
or mediocre photographer is their ability to synthesize every photo,
painting, film clip etc that they've ever seen and borrow tecnhnique,
subject matter etc and re-apply them in some new combination when its
appropiate and the opportunity arises. Its what we all do whether we are
conscious about it or not.
D Barr
>If for instance you had a picture of an old MG sports car and you licensed
>the picture for a magazine you'd know how to price it. Another scenario
>might be a magazine cover depicting the racing industry over the last fifty
>years and in a composite image perhaps the only part of your car that would
>be used is a section of one spoked wheel,
>obviously this would still require a fee for license but in this latter
>case the composite picture has little recognizable element to tie it to
>your original and the digital artist might want to resell the image he
>created.
Bob Wrote:
>Perhaps my earlier posting did not show the true nature of my anger at the
>idea that photographers should allow their copyright work to be shared by so-
>called digital artists.
Reception is real good Bob I'm hearing you loud and clear. We've not to
give up our rights.
That said Bob digital images are hear to stay. I have never considered we
should give up rights to our images, however if I was a digital "artist"
then I'd be looking for work for hire assignments from the photographer and
the photographer would have complete copyright of the digital image. If
on the other hand I was working as a self employed digital image maker (how
does comtographer sound:-) I would be remiss to give up my stake in my
created images. In order to have complete rights to my creative works I
would have to license images from the photographer on the basis that I
would be marketing the images without further payment. This would be like
outright non exclusive purchase of the images.
If I could not afford to pay for this use of the photographers images I
would have to convince the photographer that the royalty from the computer
created images should be split.
If all conventional stock photographers were adamant not to enter into
either of these arrangements then I'd simply have to look to royalty free
clip art. One way or another we will all compete with these composite
images and we can license images to these artists and share in that part of
the business or we can stand back watch them take market share but they'll
not go away.
David Barr
"Photobar" Agricultural Stock Photography
Please take a moment to visit our site.
http://www.photobar.com
Industrial page http://www.photobar.com/industry.html
Agricultural stock pictures. Location
and studio assignment photography.
519 846 8827 call or
email for information phot...@photobar.com
Eugene Fisher
writes:
<< I must really be getting to be an argumentative curmudgeon in my old age to
get into this but here it goes anyways. There is of course always the
traditional fine art point of view, put forth by Cole Weston among others,
that unless the "artist" completes the whole process, shooting, development
& printing, its not really that artists work but is in fact a
collaboration. (I beleive in Weston's case he implied that this
collaboration would be a degrading process, hence his decision to destroy
his negatives upon retirement rather than donate them to an archives
somewhere). >>
This concept of "degradation by collaboration" held by many fine art
photographer's, perhaps most notably Ansel Adams, can certainly be backed by
logical argument. It is, however, an anomaly within the larger history of fine
art. All lithography and other such printing methods have always involved
turning a drawing over to a craftsman's shop that would prepare the plates,
stone, etc. and do the actual printing often under the artists supervision.
The list who have gone this "collaborative" route include Rembrandt, Hokusai,
Dali, and a host of other venerable titans.
In high end digital fine art printing the equipment is so outside the monetary
reach of any photographer that a degree of collaboration is essential--and
often intensely frustrating.
A final and ironic note on the Weston clan: It as Brett Weston, not Cole, who
destroyed a number of his negatives before his death. His younger brother Cole
is acutually in the opposite camp. Under the direct request of his father,
Edward Weston, Cole continued for over 35 years to make prints from his
deceased father's negatives that could be purchased by anyone who wished to
own a print. And among those with eyes to see, Cole is a better printer than
was his father.
<< For example if you look at Eugene Smith's work with Life magazine and put
it in context of the chiaroscuro lighting techniques in paintings by
Rembrandt, Caravagio and Goya and its easy to see that they are a direct
rip off. Take any of the Pietas throw in a dash of lighting by Caravagio
and you have Smith's "Tomoko in the Bath" photo from Minamata.>>
Following a historical and scholarly line of reasoning this is true, or at
least tenable. However, chiaroscuro is actually a natural phenomena of light
itself, and the first artists to use and accentuate it in their work were
merely making a careful observation of nature. thus they were ripping
off--what?--I guess reality itself.
Best,
-- Gene
Eugene Fisher
Iglo...@aol.com
Los Angeles
Lorne McClinton
I stand corrected on the Westons. Its a good example of not always being
able to trust in one's memory. I seem to have a particular ability to
confuse close names.
>It is, however, an anomaly within the larger history of fine
>art. All lithography and other such printing methods have always involved
>turning a drawing over to a craftsman's shop that would prepare the plates,
>stone, etc. and do the actual printing often under the artists supervision.
>The list who have gone this "collaborative" route include Rembrandt, Hokusai,
>Dali, and a host of other venerable titans.
I agree with you completely that there has been a long collaboration
between artists and artesans. Bronze castings would be another good example
which date back to antiquity.
Still it's the artist who is remembered and not the artesan collaborator. A
serious scholar of Japanese Wood block prints might know who Hokusai
entrusted with his printing but his name certainly isn't known in very wide
circle (if at all). Still just because he didn't pull his own prints in my
mind certainly don't lesson their impact or power.
I believe that what we do as photographers is by its nature derivative. We
see and read about what has been done before and it influences the images
we make. To paraphrase a famous quote ( I apologise I can't remember who
said it) "It's easy to reach great heights when you stand on the shoulders
of giants."
It's easy to pick out unauthorized use of a copywrited image when
substantial parts of an image are used, but what about small portions. How
can you prove those are your clouds? Will we some day sue an artist or a
publisher because we once sent them an image that might have been broken
down into components and re-used? Probably the day isn't far off if it
hasn't already happened.
I guess the easiest way to see who owns copywrite of a digital image is to
create one using parts of a Disney character or a set of Golden Arches. If
you aren't sued within an inch of your life I guess you've created an
original work of art.
Personally I beleive the best way to keep making a half decent return as a
stock photographer is to consistently be out taking new images ideally in
an area in which you have some expertise. If you come up with just one good
idea that moves well there will be 60 different versions of it available
from different photographers or digital artists in short order. The sun
rises and sets every day on every location giving lots of opportunities for
duplication of any shot.
One Asteroid hits earth movie comes out and four more follow it. One
cartoon about ants come out and one about bugs follow it. If the big money
boys in Hollywood can't protect variations of an idea how can we?
Liz Hymans
I liked what you had to say. I don't think the point of the list is to make
everyone happy. I do believe one of the great good things abut the list is
that it gets readers thinking, and you've done a good job of that. Thank you
for your comments, which were valid and nicely articulated.
Liz Hymans, Panoramic Photographer, CA
Jeff Rankin-Lowe
> How does the music industry deal with sampling? I expect something similar
> will be what will finally devlope with stock photos as well.
The people who do it say that they should not have to pay a royalty for small
clips. The people whose work is sampled say they should be paid.
Until a few years ago, the most-sampled clip was James Brown's "Ooooowwww, I
feel good!" His record company had several people pursuing infringers, all of
whom were full-time employees doing only that job.
Now that a royalty system is in wide use, there are many cases of sampled and
re-worked older material. "Every breath you take" by the Police has been
incorporated into a rap song and is currently on the charts. There have been
quite a few similar uses recently.
The difference between the music and photography industries is that some new
records become hits and sell in the millions. They provide a very nice royalty
to the original copyright holder whose work was sampled. In our business, there
is nothing comparable to the success of a hit record.
As stated by Lorne, our industry might adopt the royalty system that controls
sampling, but if so, it needs many changes for the reason I have given.
Jeff Rankin-Lowe
------------------------------------------------------------------
For Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Stock Photography
Bob Croxford
<<I believe that what we do as photographers is by its nature derivative. We
see and read about what has been done before and it influences the images
we make. To paraphrase a famous quote ( I apologise I can't remember who
said it) "It's easy to reach great heights when you stand on the shoulders
of giants.">>
Dear Lorne
The wrong quote to support your argument. The Coleridge version is the most
famous. 'A dwarf can see farther than the giant when he stands on a giant's
shoulders'
An earlier version by Isaac Newton had the meaning clear. 'He can reach great
heights by standing on a giant's shoulders' This was in reference to a far
lesser scientist who was 'borrowing' Newton's work. Newton of course was a
giant intellect, we'd all be floating off into space if he hadn't *invented*
gravity:-).
Pehaps a modern version could be 'The so-called digital artist can reach great
heights by standing on photographers' shoulders.'
Regards
Bob Croxford
Don Baccus
>An earlier version by Isaac Newton had the meaning clear. 'He can reach great
>heights by standing on a giant's shoulders' This was in reference to a far
>lesser scientist who was 'borrowing' Newton's work. Newton of course was a
>giant intellect...
And a giant ego :)
Actually, the story is usually quoted as evidence of Newton's humbleness,
i.e. Newton going "oh, garsh, anyone could've developed the Calculus and
Newtonian physics" by implying he'd stood on the shoulders of giants,
merely pushing things incrementally along. I've seen this pop up in
all sorts of contexts, as a lesson in humbleness to be learned by all.
Whereas the truth is as you state it.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net
John Fowler
>
>Whereas the truth is as you state it.
Or believe it?
John T. Fowler
Fine photography from Canada
http://www.magma.ca/~jfowler
paul johnson
I love it, maybe you will to, but a young art director friend of mine
insists that PHOTOshop is more the realm of PHOTOgraphers, "they understand
the image".
Good photography is difficult, even after the years don't you still throw
away a lot of what you shoot? And how much of what you keep is the stuff
that really gets seen? I wouldn't want to undervalue a contribution to a
collaborative effort because everyone else thinks it's just point and shoot.
There's clouds, then there's CLOUDS, or is it just clouds?
But copyright law is actually quite clear.
I'd like to see what photoshop can do as an extension of my photographic
vision.
Good photoshop is difficult too.
paul
http://www.paulericjohnson.com
Stephen Johnson
> heights by standing on photographers' shoulders.'
>
> Regards
>
> Bob Croxford
I think you hit it on the head there Bob, if anyone uses even a tiny part of
my image then Im due royalties, if they complain that its only a small
sample and not important then they can paste their own rubbish in there in
its place.
Im sure there are lots of upcoming 'digital artist' there is even sufficient
demand for consumer level imaging mags (2) in the UK alone.
If these people want to use royalty free and clip images as backgrounds or
whatever (within the clip licences) to impress their granny then all well
and good, but if they fancy earning a living out of their work they had
better stay clear of stock, I dont think photodisk or Digital Stock would be
pleased to see their components reworked in a stock composite and resold
through the image bank or whoever!
Our images are as valuable and important to us as the Mickey mouse character
is to Disney, we protect our rights like Disney does.
As someone who tries to combine photography and imaging in a holistic and
organic way I can never understand anyone getting any kind of pleasure out
of rehashing other peoples images anyway - unless its a one off licensed and
legitimate commission of course!
-------------------------------
Stephen Johnson
Photography and Imaging
tel: 01263 825277
fax: 01263 824767
mailto:ste...@pixelstock.com
web: http:\\www.pixelstock.com
-------------------------------
Joseph Pobereskin
full copyright ownership on any image I hired someone to manipulate):
>I am probably going to ruffle a few feathers here, but I find some of teh
>comments made by photographers about digital manipulation experts not
>deserving of copyright revenues a bit arrogant...... (etc.)
Fred Ward then wrote:
>When a picture is made (the shutter is pushed), copyright belongs to the
>photographer unless he is a staffer or doing "work for hire." That
>original copyright is strengthened before the law by actually
>registering the image(s) with the U.S. Copyright Office and receiving a
>certificate of copyright.
>
>Derivatives (that manipulators make) are also clearly covered under the
>copyright law. Derivatives belong to the original copyright owner. If
>someone takes my image and distorts, alters, colors, crops, or changes
>it in any way, I then own copyright not only to my original image but
>also to the derivative and own rights to whatever it has earned by the
>manipulator, plus penalties if my original image was actually registered.
Eugene Fisher (The IglooKing) added:
>It is, however, an anomaly within the larger history of fine art. All
>>lithography and other such printing methods have always involved turning
>a >drawing over to a craftsman's shop that would prepare the plates,
>stone, etc. >and do the actual printing often under the artists
>supervision. The list who >have gone this "collaborative" route include
>Rembrandt, Hokusai, Dali, and a >host of other venerable titans.
Ladies & Gentlemen of STOCKPHOTO,
I believe Fred has stated fact to which The King has added historical
perspective.
This is going to be the big puzzle for us all. It's not: Do we as
photographers own our copyrights? That's been established. It's: Do we
want to share our revenues, and on what basis?
One of the big faults I find with digital imaging is not that the skill set
is so deep and the learning curve so steep, but rather the images all begin
to look alike... and some are just disparate objects thrown together
seemingly without rhime or reason no matter how skillfuly executed.
Further, I don't want my work to look like Michel Tcherevkoff's, or Ryzard
Horowitz's, or Pete Turner's. I want it to look like mine.
In addition, note this, all you digital artistes: Tcherevkoff, Horowitz
and Turner (et al) can do this kind of imaging **IN CAMERA** regardless of
the fact that they now do it with computers. This is what seperates the
men from the boys IMHO.
Even so, in the days when I was an assistant I had friends working for
these guys and I can tell you this. They all contributed with their skills
(and sometimes their vision, especially in the case of Pete Turner) to the
works of their employers. Some of them were very well paid and some not
paid at all, yet none of them received shares of the copyright in, or
revenue (aside from their salaries as assistants/technicians) from, those
images.
A case in point (and by no means does this detract from the man's reputation):
It was often said that the look of Pete Turner's work was heavily
influenced by his assistant of the moment. In the periods when, say,
Michel Tcherevkoff, Eric Meola or Steve Krongard (just to name a few)
worked in Pete's studio, his images looked like what their images
(eventually, once they became known to the outside world) look like. He
incorporated their style because they were operating his machinery, whether
Honeywell Repronars or Marron-Carrell dulicating cameras (he used both).
When Pete was doing special effects with Doug Trumbull on "Close Encounters
Of The Third Kind," it became totally unclear whose images looked like
whose. Did Turner influence the movie, or did the movie influence Turner?
Does Eric Meola own a piece of Pete Turner? Does Krongard? Does Michel
Tcherevkoff? Tony Edgeworth? Mitchell Funk?
No. Pete Turner's work is © Pete Turner. And, no doubt, the images of all
of the aforementioned are influenced by Pete Turner as well.
This is not to say that Pete couldn't do what he does without these guys.
Of course he can! He's one of the greatest photographer/imagers of our
time and nothing will change that. But he has hired help, and so does
Tcherevkoff.
Hiring someone to do what you may not have time for, or maybe even the
skill for, doesn't change the identity of the artist/copyright-holder. A
technician, no matter how talented, is still a technician.
You know, I couldn't make a decent Type C print if I stood on my head. Yet
I have many made for me by an excellent color printer. I exhibit and sell
my pictures all the time. My printer often injects his sensibility into my
images through his understanding of the process and his intuition, yet he
gets paid solely for making prints. We don't share revenues or copyright.
He's an artist/photographer/copyright-holder when he prints his own
pictures, he's a technician when he prints mine.
What/how you compensate a technician is your business, but you really don't
owe anyone a share of your copyright.
Call me arrogant if you will (lots of people already do!).
Submitted with respect for all opinions,
Joe Pobereskin
--
Joseph Pobereskin
Joseph Pobereskin Photography
New York City, NY USA
Voice: ....... (973) 313-0799
Email: ....... jos...@pobereskin.com
Web site: .... http://www.pobereskin.com
Illegitimati non caroborundum est
------------------------------------------------------------------
For Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Stock Photography
Visit The STOCKPHOTO Network Web Site ÿhttp://www.stockphoto.net
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Dean
<jos...@pobereskin.com> writes
>
>This is going to be the big puzzle for us all. It's not: Do we as
>photographers own our copyrights? That's been established. It's: Do we
>want to share our revenues, and on what basis?
>
The in depth international reiteration of copyright issues here has been
very interesting and useful (to me at least) as it has clarified the
*legal* position we as photographers enjoy and many here have fought for
over the years.
>What/how you compensate a technician is your business, but you really don't
>owe anyone a share of your copyright.
Its just that i would not be *surprised* if a very good "technician"
would only undertake the digital imaging for a share of royalties. That
of course would be up to the photographer to lose and the technician to
gain in any negotiations.
I have to admit that i was not aware of (not really thought about) the
lack of rights afforded to the digital artist/manipulator and that i do
not have to seek legal protection if i hire a "technician" who would
radically alter and add their own artistic flair to an image or
collection of images (if they all belonged to me) (its just that *common
sense* made me think that i should)
I know all the arguments about the rights of photographers but i really
do think that a new "art" establishment is / will emerge with such
powerful tools available. How long will it be before the "association of
digital artists" begin to fight their corner for their own art?
Is it much more likely that this pressure on royalties for digital
imaging will come from powerful image business conglomerates who will
wish to own more of (ie a greater proportion of) the digital images
created by paid employees from the file of images supplied by the hunter
gatherers? Like Joe said; the big question is- do we want to share
royalties and on what basis?
>
>Call me arrogant if you will (lots of people already do!).
Thanks Joe i will; but i will say it to your face (if you will let me
stand on a chair) :->
>
cheers
Pete
Peter Dean - Photographer T&F: 01398 331598 agriculture
Agripicture - Library http://www.agripicture.com stock &
Devon England UK pe...@deanteam.demon.co.uk assignments
------------------------------------------------------------------
For Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Stock Photography
Visit The STOCKPHOTO Network Web Site => http://www.stockphoto.net
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Pobereskin
>Its just that i would not be *surprised* if a very good "technician"
>would only undertake the digital imaging for a share of royalties. That
>of course would be up to the photographer to lose and the technician to
>gain in any negotiations.
>
>How long will it be before the "association of digital artists" begin to
>fight >their corner for their own art?
Pete,
If a very good technician wants more than you want to give, find another
very good technician.
I took a comprehensive course in Photoshop when I got into digital. It was
taught by a man who is extremely good at what he does and he earns the bulk
of his living doing it for others... for US$235 per hour, your computer or
his. Tell him what you want done and he does it, then he walks away. He
keeps very busy and earns what I estimate to be more than US$200,000 per
year. Not bad, that's more than some of us earn.
When it comes to an association fighting for, "their corner for their own
art," that'll be fine with me so long as they use their own images to
create their own art. If they use my images at my direction, then I want
the copyright, and the income derived from the license of same!
Visit me anytime, I have lots of chairs (proper guest room now too).
Cheers,
Joe
--
Joseph Pobereskin
Joseph Pobereskin Photography
New York City, NY USA
Voice: ....... (973) 313-0799
Email: ....... jos...@pobereskin.com
Web site: .... http://www.pobereskin.com
Illegitimati non caroborundum est
------------------------------------------------------------------
For Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Stock Photography
Visit The STOCKPHOTO Network Web Site => http://www.stockphoto.net
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shooter
>digital artists" begin to fight their corner for their own art?
If they want to fight for rights for "their own art" it should, indeed, BE
Their Own Art, not my art digitized and pixelized and manipulated. No
matter their talent, the original the "new" work came from is still mine and
the derivative work will be mine also.
If they want to create art, let them do so. If they want a collaboration,
let them do so. But anyone hired to do a job doesn't aquire any rights to
my work at all.
dan smith
Peter Dean
<jos...@pobereskin.com> writes
>
>If a very good technician wants more than you want to give, find another
>very good technician.
>
Bob, Fred , Arthur, Jeff(s) , David , Paul, Stephen, Gene, Bruce, Lorne,
John , Don, Liz et al....
I now have three certainties in my photographic life (i love making
solid decisions :-)
1/ I will not sell RF
2/ I am confident in hiring a freelance digital artist
3/ I will not work on digital stock images for other photographers
Great!!! now i can get on with what i do best anyway - always glad to be
able to drop possible workload - i seem to have too much to do as it is.
I also now have a clear vision of how to go forward with my pixel
pushing
Best wishes to all
Pete
Peter Dean - Photographer T&F: 01398 331598 agriculture
Agripicture - Library http://www.agripicture.com stock &
Devon England UK pe...@deanteam.demon.co.uk assignments
------------------------------------------------------------------
For Information on Market Lead E-mail & Fax Services
D Barr
>If they want to create art, let them do so. If they want a collaboration,
>let them do so. But anyone hired to do a job doesn't aquire any rights to
>my work at all.
I think Dan that we are all in agreement that when we hire a technician to
retouch a conventional print or someone with digital expertise to retouch
or even radically alter an image we have no way we should be sharing our
royalty.
The technician is a work for hire person.
If a digital image producer wishes to use elements of a photographers work
he is able to do so only by license. This may be license for one time use
when the digital illustration is done for a specific client. If the
digital image producer wishes to have the right to market his picture again
he can do so with the provision that he pays the photographer the
appropriate royalty for each subsequent use. The digital image producer
could also pay a higher fee and license the photographers image in such a
way that he has prepaid the royalty to the photographer for any given
period of time. The price would be considerable as the photographer will
have no way of knowing how successful the digital image makers image will
be and for what purpose it might be used.
A symbiotic relationship between photographer and digital image maker could
be beneficial when the photographer felt that the contribution made by the
digital image maker was important enough to increase the royalty payment
the photographer could make on the image used. It is likely that under an
arrangement like this each digital image produced would have to be assessed
and an agreement made on the percentage split of royalty based on how the
digital image makers expertise would increase the photographers revenue
from any given image.
If an agency is making changes to an image, even changing clouds etc. when
any part of a photographers image is used full compensation to the
photographer is required on any sale.
The photographer has copyright on all his images and no part may be used in
any way without appropriate license or photographers permission.
Having read all the postings I believe that this is an accurate
summarization of the
issue of " Whose copyright is it anyway? "
David Barr
"Photobar" Agricultural Stock Photography
Please take a moment to visit our site.
http://www.photobar.com
Industrial page http://www.photobar.com/industry.html
Agricultural stock pictures. Location
and studio assignment photography.
519 846 8827 call or
email for information phot...@photobar.com
Kevin Smith
> Pehaps a modern version could be 'The so-called digital artist can reach
> great heights by standing on photographers' shoulders.'
>
Watch the movie Jurrasic Park one time and get back to me. I
want to know if it was a so-called digital artist or a digital artist that
turned that picture of a field into a herd of dinosaurs in a field.
How recent is it that photography was underserving of any respect
because there is no art (artistic ability) to it?
Thank you for your time,
Kevin
-
Kevin Smith
Melrose Park, IL
kev...@interaccess.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To Search through Archives of Past STOCKPHOTO Discussions