|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Copyright violation & the financial damage it can do
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-21-2003 05:12 AM
Hugh writes:
quote:
I understood that the copyright of a photograph belonged to the author
As I understand it, agreed...
quote:
i.e the person who took the photograph, and not the subject of the picture.
That is not, in all cases, the definition given in UK copyright law. Section 9 states:
quote:
11.—(1) The author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it, subject to the following provisions.
(2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary.
Like pretty much everything in UK law, there is plenty of scope for ambiguity here, viz the definition of 'an employee in the course of his employment.' But according to Kamina's book, the way this has worked out in precedent is to establish the principle that, unless an agreement or contract explicitly states otherwise, the first owner of copyright is the person or company who financed the production. So if you're paid by someone else to take pictures of their wedding, then unless a contract states that the photographer retains copyright, the first owner of copyright is the customer.
quote:
Any professional photographer who sells his negatives is a rare person as he would be losing revenue on reprints. Remember that reprints are a very important source of income for a wedding & portrait photograph
They were, in the days when your average individual had neither the technology nor the expertise to produce reasonable quality copies. I can't help thinking that this particular cat is probably out of the bag by now, and that rather than fight expensive and time-consuming legal battles, maybe it would be more productive for photographers to amend their pricing structures in order to reflect the fact that images produced to commisssion are likely to be copied by their customers.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Stambaugh
Film God
Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 04-21-2003 11:15 AM
Some general information quoted from the Professional Photographers of America:
What Can You Do To Protect Your Copyrights?
The photographer is the first line of defense in copyright protection. PPA advises and encourages members to:
- Mark the back of your prints as copyrighted. This is not required by law (your images are protected from the moment of creation), however it is a wise step.
- Let your customers know how to contact you - PPA Members may use their Member ID number and PPA's 800 number. We regularly help consumers find the creator of an image.
- Educate and inform your customers that images are protected by Federal Copyright Law.
- Use the "Copyright Statement," included as a reproducible slick in every PPA Membership Kit. This can be posted in your studio and a copy inserted into each print order.
- Include a statement about copyright in your contract or other sales agreements.
- Consider including a statement that your client acknowledges that photographs are protected by copyright and that the customer agrees that reprints will only be ordered from the original photographer or with the photographer's permission. Infringements can then be dealt with as a contract violation, not just as a Federal Copyright case.
Note: Make sure that a local attorney reviews your contracts. Contract law varies from state to state.
If your work has been copied and your copyrights infringed upon, contact PPA. Be prepared to give us specific information concerning the case. This is a PPA Member-Only service.
At the local level, you may want to express your concerns to store managers and inform them about copyright requirements. We suggest that this be done as a "we think you should know" type of visit to avoid possible confrontation. You can also contact your local Chamber of Commerce, Better Business Bureau, etc., with an emphasis on education, and arrange for news releases to be used in your local papers alerting consumers to copyright law.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-21-2003 12:46 PM
Just some thoughts...
One would think, human nature being what it is, that with the oneset of high quality cheap consumer scanners and photo printers, a business model based upon selling multiple copies of a picture regardless of the law will eventually become unprofitable.
One would also think, based upon life experience, that the majority of the public think that when they hire a photographer, they are hiring a cameraman to produce a product that they own all rights to, unless they clearly understand up front that they do not. Many people, under those circumstances, will take their business elsewhere, which is why some (not all) photographers bury the copyright in small print in their contracts.
One also has to know that most people believe it is their right to own the commercial use of their image, regardless of the law. This is why smart photographers get written releases from everyone they photograph, especially in a private setting like a banquet hall.
One may wish that things were different, but that is the way things are.
/Mitchell
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-21-2003 03:01 PM
customers are informed in the printed note that my images are protected by federal copyright.
I suppose the question that comes to mind is, do you specifically tell the customers that they are not buying the copyright, just a print, and if so, how do they react? I know this may sound redundant, but it is never safe to assume.
You, as a professional, understand what you are selling. I'm not so sure the general public does, unless you explicitly state it. I'm also not sure the general public understands the implications of not owning the copyright. In addition to the obvious loss of the right to lawfully reproduce it, they also may lose the ability to legally display the photo publicly, or to prevent the photographer from using their image commercially.
/Mitchell
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic