This is topic Copyright violation & the financial damage it can do in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002000

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-20-2003, 02:11 PM:
 
I hope Brad will allow me to address the serious damage copyright violation can do to filmakers, photographers and everyone who had gone to the trouble of having products or inventions copyrighted.

As a professional portrait and wedding photographer, I would like to bring to your attention the tremendous loss of revenue I have suffered because of copyright violations. Before photo labs started to offer no questions asked photo copy service and the availability of excellent home computer scanners at reasonable prices, I used to get very nice orders from my portrait and wedding customers. There was a time when almost all of my clients would order images in different sizes. Today, the majority oder only one print usually an 8X10 or 5X7 and I know exactly what their intentions are because I have actually seen some images of mine that were scanned at home and given to their friends who I also knew who were kind enough to tell me that they received an image of mine that was scanned. People seem to have the attitude that once they buy a photograph, DVD, VHS tape, or any copyrighted work, they now own it. Yes, the original blank paper, disc, tape and the other raw material belongs to the consumer but NOT the creative content on the blank paper, disc, tape and other raw material! The Professional Photographers of America, an organization I had been a member for almost forty years has been very successful in their litigation against companies like Kinko and others who used to reproduce photographs without permission but almost all of them are now refraining from making copies of photographs without our authorization.

I know many computer hackers have found a way to reproduce DVDS that is protected by region codes and Macrovision but I have never even bothered to learn how to do it because I have absolutely no intention of doing it. If I want a DVD bad enough, I will go out and buy a copy. If a favorite movie I had enjoyed in a theatre is not (yet) available on DVD, I just live with it and hope the day will come soon when I can buy a ligitimate copy

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-20-2003, 03:09 PM:
 
Something to remember --

Nobody has a RIGHT to see my movie. If I don't want the people in (whatever country) to see my movie then that's my choice. It doesn't forfeit MY RIGHT as copyright holder to pursue that market at a later time of my choosing -- which might be never!

If there are political or legal issues in a certain country that stand in the way of an individual's freedom then those issues should be addressed directly. If it's hard to get American movies where you are then solve the real problem (censorship or whatever) instead of merely dealing with the symptom.

Bootlegging movies will not solve the real problem and -- even if it did -- that doesn't make it legal, ethical or moral. It doesn't make it right.

Brad, I swear: not another word from me on this.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-20-2003, 03:26 PM:
 

quote:

---

There was a time when almost all of my clients would order images in different sizes. Today, the majority oder only one print usually an 8X10 or 5X7 and I know exactly what their intentions are because I have actually seen some images of mine that were scanned at home and given to their friends who I also knew who were kind enough to tell me that they received an image of mine that was scanned.

---

The issue here is what you are selling your client when you sign an agreement or contract with them. Certainly if you are simply providing copies of the photographs, not the copyright to them, then anyone scanning and copying them is commiting an offence (whether in civil law, criminal law or both depends on the country). But in many cases, if you commission a photograph, film or video from a third party and pay them for it, the expectation is that you are buying the copyright as well as the physical copy. Indeed the European Copyright Directive (and our our own Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 - for more detail, see Pascal Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union, Cambridge University Press, 2002) enshrines the principle that the first owner of copyright is the individual or organisation which paid for the production, unless an agreement explicitly states otherwise.

Personally, if I were commissioning photographs of my own wedding, I would want to purchase the copyright too, so that I could legally copy and distribute them to whoever I liked. Assuming that they were originated on film, I would also want to buy the camera negative. If a professional photographer was not willing to sell me the IPR, I would simply go to someone else.

This is not the same situation as a commercial feature film, which is initiated, produced and distributed by the entertainment industry. Unlike advertisements, promos, industrial films and even wedding photographs, they are not made to commission. The copyright issues are thus, IMHO, rather different.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-20-2003, 04:04 PM:
 
Portrait theft is a growing problem. Being a computer graphics artist, I get hit up by people wanting me to scan, color correct and make prints from school photos just so they won't have to pay what they feel are the high prices for photography.

Aside from telling about Copyright Law and theft of intellectual property, I advise them that it is CHEAPER for them to just buy the damned prints. I don't work for free (hourly rates range from $30 to $50). Materials are not free either. Photo quality paper and printer ink gets expensive. When all of that is factored in most any cheapskate with a brain will figure out that it is better just to do the right thing.

Of course that doesn't stop the folks who want to scan and print the photos on their own. But without items like the original negatives, a higher quality scanner and good color correction knowledge, the cheapie people end up wasting many hours of their time only to wind up with bad looking copies --all just to save a few bucks. Don't they think their own time and labor is worth anything?

Of course, that's the big thing with all creative arts. Many customers don't feel like the time and labor invested is worth anything. So they don't want to pay for it. Perhaps if they did their own damned job for no pay then they might pull their collective heads out of their asses .

Many people don't consider photographs intellectual property since they're not quite the same as a painting or drawing created by hand. So they don't have any qualms about lifting a picture or using it inappropriately. They don't consider the photographer's investment in extrememly expensive equipment, the price he must pay for getting the photos (such as travel costs to locations, time invested, model fees, etc.), costs of development, print making, high quality drum scanning, data archiving, etc.

People choke at the $400 price of a stock photo disc, but that's really a bargain (provided any of the pictures can actually fit your needs and haven't been used to death in other publications). Stock photos have the same limitations as other types of clip art. Very often for many ad projects, you just have to pay the money to hire a photographers, illustrators and graphic designers. Well, that's if you want to do the job right and not get shown up by your competitors.
 

---

Posted by Hugh McCullough (Member # 1542) on 04-20-2003, 04:53 PM:
 
Copying, by any means, a photograph taken by someone else without their permission is stealing.
I understood that the copyright of a photograph belonged to the author i.e the person who took the photograph, and not the subject of the picture.
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
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-20-2003, 05:22 PM:
 
In the US, wedding photographs would typically be considered a "work made for hire"--i.e. the photographer was paid by someone specifically to take the photographs. In the absence of any contract or other agreement to the contrary, the person who hired the photographer would own the copyright on the pictures (not necessarily the negatives or slides, but the copyright to them).

I don't really know how this works in practice, but I would assume that Claude and other wedding photographers would include something in their contract that states something like "photographer retains copyright ownership." Presumably this is because reprints are profitable for the photographer and charging for them allows the photographer to charge less to do the initial wedding shoot. If that is the case, then any unauthorized reproduction outside of that which is allowed by the "fair use" provisions of the copyright laws (which are becoming more and more narrowly defined) would constitute theft.

[No, I'm not a lawyer, but I have spent a bit of time learning about copyright laws in general.]

Bobby makes a good point that people who try to copy photographs by scanning them or re-photographing existing prints are really just wasting their time, when they could simply pay about the same or maybe slightly more to have the original photographer make top-quality prints from original negatives or slides.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-20-2003, 06:16 PM:
 
Scott,

I am very sorry to have to differ with you but you are wrong!
What exactly is the difference between someone retaining me to create a portrait for them or to photograph their wedding? In both cases, I am being hired to provide photographic services and deliver either a mounted/Framed portrait or a finished wedding album. The cilent only paid for the time spent executing the assignment and images of themselves for their personal use. All reproduction rights and full ownership of the images on a film base or digital file are retained by me.
This is stipulated in the copyright laws of the United States and is the reason Kinko or any other similar establishments cannot reproduce my images without permission. Kinko's and many others have used exactly the same logic has you in litigations initiated by the Professional Photographers of America and have always lost. I have had no problem legally protecting my images from being reproduced without permission in recent years. It is the home computer scanner that is causing all the problem now and sadly there is not much we photographers can do about it.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-20-2003, 07:35 PM:
 
I have noticed where the folks at Office Max and Office Depot retail outlets will not reproduce anything that has a copyright affixed to it. It depended on the clerk that was taking your order. Some would, and some won't.

Point in question once for me was I needed a schematic reproduction of an old transmitter. The book for that thing was out-of-print, and no manuals existed anywhere. The schematic was like a "tattered and torn rag" because it was so old after so many years of use.

I took it back to the station, xeroxed it by panels, and ran the panels (there were about 12 of them) through my scanner and made one humongus bitmap. After about 20 hours if work with Paintbrush, it was completely done. I copied it to a floppy as a mono bitmap (almost 1.44 megs worth) and took it down to Office Max. They stuffed the floppy into their computer, and several minutes later I had a nice big schematic of 48 inches in width and about 26 inches high.

So, I guess there is more than one way to skin a cat....

Normally, I don't believe in doing things like that, but in this instance, I really did not have much of a choice.

And yes, I think Claude should include something in his contract so he has some options he can employ if someone does steal his works.

I do believe in copyrights. Some time ago, Josh's dad sent me a picture of a tornado he took. Very nice picture. But I still asked Josh's dad for permission to send it to some friends of mine. Permission was granted for me to do so.

It is a case of honor and respect towards the author as far as I am concerned.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-20-2003, 08:38 PM:
 
Paul,

I do have a formal contract for wedding photography and all images I deliver also includes a printed literature that states that I appreciate the business and it is still possible to reorder additional pictures. The note also reminds my customers that all of my images are copyrighted and are not to be reproduced without permission.

By the way, I do not think you broke any laws because the printed matter you described sounds like something in public domain. I have been called to restore many old pictures that are over fifty years old. If a client brings in a recent photograph for reproduction or restoration, I would first try to see if the photographer who created the picture was still in business. When it is obvious that the original author cannot be contacted no matter how hard my customer and try, I will accept the restoration assignment.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-20-2003, 09:12 PM:
 
What really annoys me is every Joe-blow that takes a pic of something or someone and somehow thinks "they" own it.

If you are hired to do a specific job, you sure the hell better have in your contract/agreement that you retain the ownership rights. If not, you do not have any legal claims to the work.

I agree Scott, if someone hires you for a specific job, you are considered "work for hire" and the ownership rights belong to the person/company hiring you. This applies to ALL intellectual and artistic properties as well as the writing and coding of software!

If you are publishing your own work publicly and have the appropriate releases, then you do indeed have ownership rights.

But taking photos of private individuals and/or functions that are not for general public publication, is not a free license to own the work. The person hiring the work is the owner unless, as I mentioned, it is specifically mentioned in the contract of who owns the work.

Been through too many legal battles with the wanna-be's and won! Get it in the Contract!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-20-2003, 10:04 PM:
 
Any photographer, illustrator or graphic artist should have contracts available for customers to sign to stipulate what kinds of rights are transferred with a purchase. Very often many creative people just assume they keeping the copyright to their creation, but the customer does not necessarily know that.

For example, if I am commissioned to do a album cover illustration for someone, I'm going to have them sign a contract that stipulates they'll get a single use of first North American serial rights and that I retain the whole copyright. If they want to buy out the entire copyright, I'll have them sign another contract after re-negotiation for more money.

To make the long point short, never assume anything in terms of legal affairs and copyright law. Get it in writing.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-20-2003, 10:20 PM:
 
The pictures from my wedding have a large rubber-stamped copyright notice on the back of each and every print, with the words DO NOT DUPLICATE in big bold letters. We also had to sign a contract with the photog which had the "copyright" section printed in much larger type than the rest of the document.

I realize this will not stop the unscrupulous person from scanning.

Claude, maybe you ought to crank up the price for those people who just order one print, then tell them the reasons. If they insist they will not be scanning, then have them sign a document that includes a huge penalty if they do scan.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-20-2003, 11:12 PM:
 
I do not "THINK" I own rights to the images I create . I know I Do! It does not matter what you think because many othe people with your very short sighted opinion have always lost in the courts as I have stated several times already.

By the way,if you are hinting that I am "A JOE BLOW" picture taker, you are wrong again! I have always been a very highly respected photographer in my state for almost forty years and the very proud holder of the Professional Photographers of America's Master of Photography and Photographic Craftsman degrees for over fifteen years! I am a professional trained photographic artist and have been engaged in my craft long before you were born! I have received a community award for producing quality work and providing other service to my community. My state Professional photographers association presented the PPA National Award to me in 1990 for my dedication and service to my industry both local and national. Beside myself, there are hundreds of other photographers all over our great country with similar credentials and awards like mine who have also dedicated themselves to the art of professional photography. There are also thousands of others who do not have degrees or awards but are all equally talented and have provided their clients with very precious images and impeccable service. I hope what I had just stated will make you think twice before you once again refer to the practitioners of my industry as "Every Joe Blow"!

If you still dispute what I said, please call the Professional Photographers of America in Atlanta at (800) 786-6277 Monday to Friday and ask to speak to someone about photographers and copyright laws. If you like, you may also call the legal counsel of the Association, HOWE & UTTON in Chicago, Illinois. Sorry I do not have their phone numbers.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-20-2003, 11:23 PM:
 
Geeze Claude, lighten up...you are reading way too much into my post. I'm sorry if you felt I was referring to you in particular....I was not.

I AM ALSO a professional and I have been around the block a few times myself! Oh and in court cases...and WON!

Instead of attacking me, why don't you ***READ*** what I said... Like the "Get it in the contract" bit!

I'm really NOT impressed with all of your legal name-dropping... or interested in your legal eagles...been there done that many times! Maybe you should also check into the legalities of all that I said before you go off half-cocked!

It really appears that you have to justify your experience and talents by over-reacting. I always thought you were a professional above all that.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-20-2003, 11:34 PM:
 
easy, boys.....
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-21-2003, 02:37 AM:
 
I feel that if someone takes a picture of me and my wife (if I had one) as a wedding photo, I could pretty much do what I want with it (if there were no contract). Why? Because I'm the damn person in the photo! If I didn't sign a contract saying otherwise, then there is no way that the photographer owns my likeness. I do. I would probably have the photographer/studio print up many prints anyway simply because they can do a better job than I can, but I can do whatever I want with pictures of me. Pics of other people and things? Entirely different story. And no, I am not insinuating that simply because I am a small speck in a huge crowd that I own the picture content. I just own my likeness. Like it has been said before, if you make it extremely clear in the contract, then you don't have anything to worry about.

Copying DVDs and movies is copying intellectual property. I am not intellectual property (I can see the jokes coming now).
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-21-2003, 03:59 AM:
 
Joe,

The Professional Photographers of America used to circulate a brochure about how the copyright laws of the United States protects photographers and other artists. In the brochure's heading was this slogan "IF IT WAS CREATED, IT'S COPYRIGHTED". The rule is very simple. You can do whatever you want with your pictures but you do not have the right to reproduce the photograph without the permission of the photographer who took the pictures even without a signed contract agreement between the photographer and the client. I am not making this up. Any attorney who is well versed in the copyright laws of the United States will tell you that I am correct. This law appplies to intellectual and non intellectual property like yourself so I guess you are included. Sorry

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-21-2003, 04:29 AM:
 
Any chance you could get a copy of that brochure on the internet or a paper copy? It would be an interesting read for those of us without specific knowledge in this area.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-21-2003, 05:12 AM:
 
Hugh writes:

quote:

---

I understood that the copyright of a photograph belonged to the author

---

quote:

---

i.e the person who took the photograph, and not the subject of the picture.

---

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.

---

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

---

• 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.
 

---

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 04-21-2003, 11:50 AM:
 
I noticed that most of these posts happened on 4/20.
You guys are some angry stoners!
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 04-21-2003, 11:57 AM:
 
I sure had a Happy 4/20! I celebrated the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ rather than worrying about who really owns what of mine.

Happy Easter, everyone!

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-21-2003, 12:24 PM:
 
David,

Why did I not think about doing what you did by providing a link to the Professional Photographers of America's website on copyright. Thank you very much for doing that.

I now feel that I may have overreacted to Phil's comments. I did it only because I love my profession and was only defending it when we were refered to as "Every Joe Blow that takes a Pic or something". "EVERY" was the word used in the post that had offended me because I interpreted as every photographer who takes picture because it includes many of my skilled colleagues and myself. If Phil had said "Some Joe Blows" in his post, I would not have become upset because there are indeed a lot of "joe Blow's" in our industry just like there are a lot of"Joe Blow's in the motion picture exhibition industry who have no problem doing film wrong and work for a theatre chain owned by a guy named "Joe Blow".

Thomas,

You are very correct. In my rage, I forgot it was Easter and should have waited until today to reply to Phils comments. I am sorry for forgetting it was the anniversary of our Lords resurrection. I hope you had a nice Easter.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 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
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-21-2003, 01:17 PM:
 
Mitchell,

As I had mentioned earlier, I do insert a little printed note that informs my clients that my photographs are protected by federal copyright. The only time when signed contracts are necessary is when most photographers book weddings. The contracts list in detail the servicees that will be provided on a set date and list the church, the time as well as the site of the reception. Most important, it covers the total financial costs and the deposit required. The contract also mentions copyright.
Getting every portrait customer to sign a copyright agreement before a photo session is never done in our industry. To do so is like the movie studios asking video store owners to get customers to sign a agreement not to copy a movie after he or she buys the DVD or video tape. Like the DVDs and tapes, my proofs have (C) Claude's Photographed embossed on the lower right hand corner and customers are informed in the printed note that my images are protected by fedearl copyright.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-21-2003, 02:58 PM:
 
For clarification:

"Every Joe Blow..." was NOT a reference to any professionals or anyone in particular.

It is usually used as another name for "John Q. Public".

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 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
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-21-2003, 03:58 PM:
 
It doesn't matter whether a photo was taken by John Q. Public in front of Wal-Mart or Ansel Adams at Yosemete. ALL photography is technically covered by copyright law. It doesn't matter if the picture is some little digital camera snapshot or an 8 X 10 view camera chrome.

Joe R. raised an excellent point about the people in the photos. Sure, a photographer may have the copyright of his photos. 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.

As to court battles and who won and so forth, their is a lot of unfair BULLSHIT happening with regard to intellectual property. Some fellows with deep pockets will steal like thieving bastards and count on having a bigger legal war chest to fend off challenges from John Q. Public. This is a cornerstone of how Hollywood does business. May the people who steal die painfully of brain cancer.

To leave things to trust or verbal agreements is foolhardy. In creative business the phrase "trust me" translates to "fuck you." It doesn't matter if it is movies, book publishing, art or whatever.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-21-2003, 04:20 PM:
 
The reason I had started this topic was due to our Indian friend's post about the bootleg copy of "SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION" that is being sold in his country and just wanted to point out that the professional photography industry also have federal copyright laws protecting our images. Instead of of appreciating the fact that my images are also protected by copyright as soon as they are created, I start getting comments from some of you that you have every right to copy pictures that were created by a photographer such as myself if you were not made to sign a agreement stating that you do agree not to copy my image I create for you. Mitchell, I am going to explain the federal copyright protection I enjoy ONE last time to you. Under the current copyright laws, all I am required to do is to make sure that my name and copyright either a "C" or a "R" is on the print. Like a video, book or any other copyrighted material, the customer need not be told or reminded verbally about copyright every time they buy our product as long as a copyright notice is printed on the product or a seal or sticker is attached on the product or photographs which I and my other photographic colleagues do when we deliver my proofs and finished photographs. The only time I would gladly discuss the matter pertaining to copyright with any of my customers is if they ask. Except for some very rare cases, I have never had a problem with any customers about compyright in the almost forty years I have been in business.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-21-2003, 04:30 PM:
 
If I'm understanding Mitchell's comments (he can correct me if I'm wrong), he's agreeing with Claude on the LETTER of the copyright laws. But he's also saying that as a PRACTICAL MATTER, the letter of the law is often (probably usually) ignored by the general public, and by many photographers who might be afraid of alienating their customers by making a big issue out of who "owns" the photographs. I don't think you guys are really on opposite sides of the issue at all.

Of course, I've been accused of being a fence-sitter sometimes.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-21-2003, 09:21 PM:
 
Kodak Digital Watermarking:

Digital Watermarking

About Digital Watermarking

Data Embedding

Kodak Watermarking for Digital Cinema
 

---

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-22-2003, 12:29 AM:
 
Claude,

Do also offer a price to buy out the copyright of the images you create? So if I hire you to take photographs of my wedding (too late by the way) that I have the option of purchasing the copyright to all photos/negatives?

If two prices were listed, it would make things rather clear to the uninformed that copyrights must be purchased and not merely assumed.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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!
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-22-2003, 09:15 AM:
 
Claude, David is correct. We are NOT in disagreement about the copyright law, and that the law should be obeyed. My point was that unless you rub the public's face in it, they do not understand what they are legally entitled to do.

/Mitchell
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-22-2003, 11:45 AM:
 
On a similar subject, if I had wedding pictures taken and the photographer used one of mine in advertising without first getting my consent, giving me a good deal on the photos or paying me, I would sue the photographer.

All this talk makes me afraid to use a professional photographer now. Taking pictures is an art that many are adept in. I think I'll use close friends to do the job when the time comes.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-22-2003, 11:48 AM:
 
Until this thread came up, I had no idea that professional photographers own the copyrights on the photos they take, even if they are doing the work for-hire. Of course everyone knows that photos can be copyrighted, but I didn't realize the extent of the coverage of copyright law. Shows what I know.
 

---

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 04-22-2003, 11:57 AM:
 
Bobby Henderson wrote :

quote:

---

ALL photography is technically covered by copyright law

---

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.

---

How is this possible? These 2 statements contradict each other. If all photography is copy righted then why ask for signed release.

I understand what David Stambaugh posted about PPA. That makes sense but it makes it states you have to inform your customer about his right towards copy right. What Claude is doing good as to others not informing their customers, well that is wrong.

These laws sound and smell like . They make it more confusing than helpful.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 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.

---

quote:

---

Sure, a photographer may have the copyright of his photos. 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.

---

I know a bit about the neccessities of releases from doing motion picture production work. However, I hadn't thought about them in terms of paparazzi  photographers. How is it that these people are able to sell photos of celebrities and have them printed in magazines? I would assume that few of them actually get permssion to use them. I am not really talking about publicized events such as movie premieres and the like, but more photos of people coming out of there house, etc. Does their "celebrity" negate their rights?
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-22-2003, 05:00 PM:
 
I am very glad that everything I said about photographers and federal cobyright laws has been substantiated by calls to our PPA national office in Atlanta. The the link to the PPA website with the fact sheet about the subject Dave was kind enough to provide was also helpful. Thank you, Dave and Scott

John, I have asked my Kodak representative this question many times and I was told that the company is working on various ideas how to protect photographers like myself from getting our images reproduced by home scanners. The idea you mentioned sounds great but is there a way the company can produce a dye or a paper emulsion that will not yield good results if a photograph printed on such a paper is scanned? In a way, it would be like Macrovision that makes copying DVDs impossible for the average home video consumer.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-22-2003, 08:51 PM:
 
John Pytlak said:

quote:

---

irregardless

---

Aaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!

Regardless regardless regardless!

These laws seem pretty ambiguous. I don't think that they are wrong, but people are definitely uninformed and that should really change. A simple, well worded and non-threatening sounding contract would be a good thing before a photo shoot. Then if a client does something foolish you can claim that they knowingly did so, as proved by the contract that they signed. There would be no contest, case closed, back to work and no more time or money wasted in court.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-22-2003, 10:16 PM:
 

quote:

---

Aaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!

Regardless regardless regardless!

---

He DID say "regardless" later in the same post.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-23-2003, 01:46 AM:
 
Someone correctly stated earlier that the day when photographers can make a lot of money from reorders is long gone ever since it became easier to make copies with home scanners. It does not matter if consumers are aware that when they copy a professional photograph, they are violating federal copyright laws after signing an agreement, they will do it anyway. I have not mentioned this before but I have taken into condideration that people will make copies of my work no matter how hard I try to prevent it so I have structured my pricing in a way that I will still make a nice profit if they only buy one print. One of the things I have started to do recently is offering a complete set of the digital files to my clients for about an extra hundred dollars for a CD with about fifty raw digital files plus the retouched one's that was used to make the finished prints at the time I deliver their portrait order. When they buy these files, they are only buying the files for their personal use. One of the condition of the sale of a copy ofthe original files beside retaining ownership is for my clients to grant me permission to use as much images I chose to make samples and display prints and if any images are exceptional, I will have the rigts to enter them in our annual state and national photographic competitions. These sale of digital files have broughy me a lot of extra income
.
-Claude
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-23-2003, 02:12 AM:
 
William asks:

quote:

---

How is this [the need for a signed release by 'talent' appearing in a photograph] possible? These 2 statements contradict each other. If all photography is copy righted then why ask for signed release.

---

quote:

---

and everyone who had gone to the trouble of having products or inventions copyrighted.

---

quote:

---

all I am required to do is to make sure that my name and copyright either a "C" or a "R" is on the print.

---

quote:

---

Actually, only the © symbol and/or the word 'Copyright' are necessary. For recordings, a letter P in a circle is used in lieu of the ©.

---

quote:

---

13.—(1) Copyright in a sound recording or film expires—
(a) at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is made, or
(b) if it is released before the end of that period, 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is released.

---

The definition of 'released' has been established by case law to mean first broadcast or exploited for financial gain (e.g. shown in a cinema or sold/hired on video).

In order to establish your ownership of copyright in law, you need to be able to prove when that 70-year clock started ticking (if indeed it has) and that it hasn't run out yet. When we recently produced a compilation video for sale which contained a significant amount of original footage (interviews, mainly), I followed the advice of an author friend, and posted a copy to myself with a © notice on the sleeve and the cassette itself. The package is now being kept, with seal and postmark intact, and I understand that this is routinely accepted by courts as proof of the date of production, should it ever be needed. We also bought a copy from a local store and kept the receipt (with the title printed on it), to prove the date of publication.

So writing '© Joe Bloggs, 2003' on your photo, video or whatever serves notice that you assert ownership of copyright, but should it come to a legal dispute, you might need to be able to prove that the date is valid.
 

---

Posted by David Rigby (Member # 1301) on 04-24-2003, 04:53 AM:
 
I read somewhere that this 'post it to yourself and leave it sealed' technique for ensuring copyright is legally baseless. I forget where I saw this, but I'm pretty sure it was an informed source (maybe it was my copyright lawyer who mentioned it even, I forget). Not sure what the (free) alternative is supposed to be - I guess something along the lines of a magistrate's affadavit confirming the origination date might suffice, but would cost money

David
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-24-2003, 05:57 AM:
 
A postmarked and sealed package would not in itself 'ensure copyright' in the sense of proving who owns(ed) it, but simply that the intellectual property inside did exist, in that form, on the date of the postmark. It would therefore establish whether copyright had expired or not, but that in itself would not prove that you owned the copyright.

So in itself, the 'post it to yourself' trick is legally baseless. But if a dispute arises as to whether a work is still in copyright or not, I am told that it is a legally accepted way of establishing the date of creation. This could be especially useful for categories where the period is much shorter: for example, copyright in the typographical arrangement of a published work only lasts for 25 years. Let's say that a case arose involving copyright violation in a printed text: the author and/or publisher alleges that the actual text content was copied illegally (in which the term is 70 years), but the defence argues that the text pre-dated the publisher's edition, is out of copyright, and that all (s)he copied was the printed edition, in which the term is only 25. A sealed, postmarked copy of the text, in a different edition to the disputed one which is demonstrably older than 25 years but not older than 70, would, when opened in court, prove the plaintiff's case. But all that would prove is that copyright existed; it would not prove who the rightful owner of that copyright is, which would (if disputed) have to be considered as a separate issue.

The person who told me this is a published crime novelist who in turn was given the advice by a professional body she belongs to, so I guess it must have some basis in fact. No mention of it in Kamina's book on film copyright, though this practice is probably irrelevant in the case of a theatrically distributed film, where documentary evidence of the date of the first public screening at which an admission fee is charged would serve the same purpose. I can't see myself posting 10 transit cases full of 70mm, somehow...
 

---