|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Copyright violation & the financial damage it can do
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don Anderson
Master Film Handler
Posts: 312
From: West Bend, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 04-21-2003 10:15 PM
Claude, I'm behind you 100% on copyright violators. I used to shoot 100s of weddings, portraits, etc. I also managed retail photolabs up until last year. Since Kodak began selling their PICTURE MAKER units to every Tom, Dick and Harry, every customer that walks in the door tries to copy portraits. We don't allow it, and I won't tolerate anyone who attempts to rip a copyrighted image off. But, because this units, and other manufacturers, place these machines in KMart, WalMart, Walgreens, etc... customers do copy images. WalMart is the big offender. No, I won't blame it on the poorly trained technicians for allowing it. Its the customer that knowingly attempts to scan the images, and knows he or she is breaking the law. I've even had an off duty police officer stand behind a lab tech while she helped a customer on our Kodak Picture Maker, watched the password entered, and later came back and attempted to scan a professional portrait. He almost got away with it. I caught him and I contacted the police station and reported him, having him investigated. Its too easy to get away using these machines, digital watermark or not. I only wish that all photographers would stamp each photo, including proofs, to indentify their images/studio. But, even by doing that, the crooked customer attempts to wipe off or block out the stamp. I know, I've seen it done way too many times. I can't believe all the dvds of current movies that are floating around on Ebay and the internet. Heck, why bother to pay 8 bucks to see it in a theatre, when you can watch it on your pc?? I won't even think of downloading a bootleg print. Too bad the rest of society does see it our way.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-22-2003 03:15 AM
Bobby writes:
quote:
But unless he gets a SIGNED RELEASE from the talent in the photo, he will be liable for damages by using their likeness without permission. That's another reason to get things in writing.
This issue has stirred up a hornet's nest on this side of the pond, thanks to the European [Union] Copyright Directive, which the EU require to be implemented in UK law soon. This process is currently delayed because the consultation exercise being carried out by the Patent Office has overrun.
At present, image rights only operated in a very restricted sense in UK copyright law. Simply put, the talent has to assert them in the context of each and every production [s]he wishes to be protected. It boils down to the ideological difference between British copyright law, which is based on money (i.e. [s]he who finances the production of a creative work is the de facto first owner of copyright), and the principle of the droit d'auteur enshrined in European law - which says that basically, the creative talent, rather than the source of the money, has the key IPR rights.
The Euros want to being us into line, and the main short-term implication will be vastly enhanced image rights for individual talent. For a film archivist this is a huge issue, especially in the case of older footage where it is often difficult or impossible to trace the copyright owner. For example, if I were trying to clear commercial rights for a 1950s documentary, then under the new proposals I would not only have to clear the copyright with the film's production company (plus any related music copyrights that were granted to the producer under a restricted licence) but also, potentially, to anyone appearing in the film, e.g. experts being interviewed.
If this law goes through it'll be a complete nightmare and vastly restrict the ways in which moving image and sound archives can provide access to their holdings. I hope our government tells the EU to sod off!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 04-22-2003 12:13 PM
quote:
Since Kodak began selling their PICTURE MAKER units to every Tom, Dick and Harry, every customer that walks in the door tries to copy portraits. We don't allow it, and I won't tolerate anyone who attempts to rip a copyrighted image off. But, because this units, and other manufacturers, place these machines in KMart, WalMart, Walgreens, etc... customers do copy images. WalMart is the big offender. No, I won't blame it on the poorly trained technicians for allowing it. Its the customer that knowingly attempts to scan the images, and knows he or she is breaking the law. I've even had an off duty police officer stand behind a lab tech while she helped a customer on our Kodak Picture Maker, watched the password entered, and later came back and attempted to scan a professional portrait.
AFAIK, eventually the Kodak digital watermark on the photo/proof will allow automatic payment back to the professional photographer who took the photo, irregardless of a bogus password. The watermark can also be used to automatically track unauthorized publication of any photo in a newspaper, book, magazine, or on the Internet, as it can read the digital "signature" regardless of the way the picture is reproduced.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-22-2003 12:30 PM
Out of curiousity, I took Claude's advice and called the PPoA. According to the person I spoke with, he's absolutely correct in that the photographer would own the rights to the pictures in the absense of any specific statement in a contract.
Interesting.
I'm confused about the "work made for hire" issue now.
If I hire a software developer to write some code for me, then (in the absence of any other contract), I would own the copyright to that code, as I was the employer and the code was written within the normal scope of the developer's employment. The same would go for any documentation and other materials prepared by the employee. It would be both illegal and unethical for the developer to then turn around and re-sell the code that he produced for me to another customer or to try to charge me for each use of the software.
So, then, why is it that if I were to hire a photographer (again, with no contract stating who would own the rights to the images) would I not own the rights to the images that he produced while employed by me (regardless of who retains ownership of the original film elements)?
I'm very surprised to learn this, as both photography and software development are creative endeavors and require skilled professionals to produce good results. Yet one occupation seems to follow the "work made for hire" pattern and the other doesn't. Weird.
In any case, it's probably best for the photographer to make the rights issues clear to the customer before committing to a contract in order to avoid the potential for "innocent" violations by customers who didn't understand the issues (as I didn't when this thread began).
As for the issue of the subject of the photograph: this is not a copyright issue. My understanding is that the subject has no rights if the photograph was taken in a public place and is not used for advertising purposes in a way that would imply endorsement of a product by the subject. Photographs not taken on public streets, etc. would require permission of the subject and (in some cases) the property owner before being published, as I understand the issue.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-22-2003 01:32 PM
Joe,
Paparazzi are typically hired by news organizations to take photos in what will appear as "editorial comment" or "news." That falls under the laws of "fair comment." If you are not using image to sell a product or your own services, the use may fall under the category of fair comment.
If you run a newspaper, you can run photos of people without their permission when they are related to some kind of news story or editorial. Still, they have to pay those photographers for the work. The same kind of thing extends to items like artwork, logos and other creative property. However, most news organizations at least show the name of the property holder along with publishing the item.
Many professional work for the Associated Press and United Press International, or do freelance work for them. Some of the best photographers in the business do that. My father has a couple friends who are Pulitzer Prize winning news photographers (Eddie Adams and Bill Foley). Those guys gave me some great tips for shooting when I was taking photography classes in art school. Bill Foley sold my father one of the Canon F-1 cameras he used in the early 1980's for his prize winning work (and then I got to use it for some of my art school stuff which I thought was really cool).
**********
William Leyland had questions about some of my previous statements. Yes, William, ALL photography is technically copyrighted from the very moment it is originated. Same goes for artwork and any other creative endeavor. Quality or professional creditials do not weigh in here. Sure, you may not use a Hasselblad view camera and $40,000 lenses to make your photos. Still any snapshot no matter how crude, even it is a horrible looking Polaroid, is automatically protected by copyright law.
My statement about talent right does not contradict rights regarding photography. If a supermodel poses for the cover of Sports Illustrated, do you expect only the photographer be paid? In a commercial endeavor, talent can make a claim for some of the financial take --unless the photographer make talent agree to certain terms under contract or agree to appear for free by signing a release. You absolutely have to do this.
I remember listening to Martin Brest's commentary on the "Beverly Hills Cop" DVD regarding the opening title sequence and running into a little difficulty getting releases from some of the neighborhood people in the shots.
| 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)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
. They make it more confusing than helpful.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic