A question about pro pics

[diggerbez]

ah right ok so being in a public place means that i giver permission for my pic to be taken (that makes sense- although why did the google maps thing have to blur faces out then?)...but in theory they should ask for permission if being used for promo purposes? would be quite funny to get your own back on any particularly nasty Togs wouldn't it! (not that many are- most i've dealt with are LOVELY!)

 

[vallin]

Ah yes that old site which will be getting an overhaul soon. click the first link in my sig instead and giggle over copyright bit at bottom

Haha, I like it! I'm just going to work on the basis that no ones going to want to steal any of mine Am going to have to get you lot to CC mine once it's up and running

 

[Santa_Claus]

You would be surprised at people, you will get pics nicked. I once had several albums full nicked by a local FB user and they were trying to pass them off as their own pics. Managed to get FB to remove them although took a bit of effort as those pics weren't watermarked or similar!

 

[vallin]

haha smooth! I've put a little copyright thing at the bottom of the pagem but I may subtley expand that slightly if anything crops up Thanks for the advice!

 

[popsdosh]

I dont how many of you are aware if you go into the depths of officialdom at BE you agree by taking part that you have no right to any media images ,They all belong to BE infact they are the media rights holder for any BE event only they dont make a big issue out of Video and photos of individual riders by there own people.They could if they chose stop all photgraphy and Video by other than the official photographers.
They are having a crack down on the semi-pro photographers who just turn up at events taking shots and then hawk them around the internet as the official Photographers pay quite a bit to the events for their right to take photographs to sell.

 

[TarrSteps]

There have been some quite famous examples of copyright contravention, even in very high profile arenas. The Barrocca ad comes to mind. Usually all that happens is the offending product is removed and possibly damages are paid, so it's unlikely we'd even know about it.

Re the google photos - I think they had to address that specifically, since they are taken by satellite so there is no way people would have "expected" their photos were being taken. Also, they show a lot of private areas, which would make it illegal, so it's probably easier to organise software to blur every human face rather than facing the consequences of getting it wrong. I certainly know people who have had their images used to sell horses or other products without their knowledge. (One was me! I rode a horse which was sold, then the next owner used a photo of me riding it prior to their buying it to sell it on. The previous owner of the horse and I asked for it to be removed because we didn't want to be associated with misrepresenting the horse. But it must happen all the time - I was only notified by fluke because someone who knew me and knew I'd ridden the horse saw the ad.)

By the way, did you know shows pay a license fee to use things like freestyle music? So they don't contravene copyright. I think that confuses people into thinking they have the "right" to use any music they want for a performance, when in fact (if it's all legal) it's only that they've agreed and paid for it without knowing.

 

[dieseldog]

You are allowed to sell your copy on eBay like a book your just not allowed to make copies to sell just like a book

Would you be allowed to sell your copy of your photo on Ebay? If there was an uploaded scan of your photo on the advert - selling that photo that you bought would that be infringing copyright law?

 

[Broodle]

Would you be allowed to sell your copy of your photo on Ebay? If there was an uploaded scan of your photo on the advert - selling that photo that you bought would that be infringing copyright law?

Nope, there is a special exclusion for just this purpose:

CPDA1988 s.63(1) It is not an infringement of copyright in an artistic work to copy it, or to issue copies to the public, for the purpose of advertising the sale of the work.

 

[dieseldog]

Nope, there is a special exclusion for just this purpose:

CPDA1988 s.63(1) It is not an infringement of copyright in an artistic work to copy it, or to issue copies to the public, for the purpose of advertising the sale of the work.

So is that the loophole? Put the photo up for sale on your Facebook page?

 

[TableDancer]

They are having a crack down on the semi-pro photographers who just turn up at events taking shots and then hawk them around the internet as the official Photographers pay quite a bit to the events for their right to take photographs to sell.

I was dimly aware of this, although as you say they don't make a fuss about it by and large... I hope BE don't crack down too hard on the semi-pros, though, it could be a sledgehammer to crack a nut: at most of your bread and butter events the photographers pay little or nothing, just like the catering outlets who are asked for a contribution if they have a good day. It's more a question of providing a service for competitors, who like/expect to be able to buy a record of their day (and to eat ) Several of the semi-pros go around the Pony Trials, for instance, and take far more and better shots than the official photographers on the day, and are happy for the kids to tag themselves on Facebook etc so they look at each others' photos - I don't see any harm in that. If the pro togs take decent shots, prints will always be bought, but half the time they haven't taken the trouble to pick a decent fence to shoot at in any case.

Of course, in the case of the major events, if photographers have paid to be there, I can understand the need to protect their priveleges.

 

[popsdosh]

I agree most of the semi-pros get far better Pics.The official photgraphers should have to compete they may up their game.At the moment the complaint I hear from photographers is that events just use the same photographer year after year even if somebody could make a better job of it and possibly bring them more income in a roundabout way.

 

[FrodoBeutlin]

I was dimly aware of this, although as you say they don't make a fuss about it by and large... I hope BE don't crack down too hard on the semi-pros, though, it could be a sledgehammer to crack a nut: at most of your bread and butter events the photographers pay little or nothing, just like the catering outlets who are asked for a contribution if they have a good day. It's more a question of providing a service for competitors, who like/expect to be able to buy a record of their day (and to eat ) Several of the semi-pros go around the Pony Trials, for instance, and take far more and better shots than the official photographers on the day, and are happy for the kids to tag themselves on Facebook etc so they look at each others' photos - I don't see any harm in that. If the pro togs take decent shots, prints will always be bought, but half the time they haven't taken the trouble to pick a decent fence to shoot at in any case.

Of course, in the case of the major events, if photographers have paid to be there, I can understand the need to protect their priveleges.

If BE really did put rules like that in place it would be just awful - Some of you may remember I had a similar experience at a BD event - my young horse's Medium debut and I was told by the pro photographer who was there that I could not take any photos of MY horse. It was one of the worst experiences of my life, I had flown in all the way from Italy, paid the entry fees (obviously!), etc, only to be told I wasn't allowed to take photos of the horse I owned..!!!!...In that case, the organisers stepped in and said I had every right to continue taking photos (by then I had missed half of the test anyway...) but if a rule explicitly prohibiting any photography on the part of the public was brought in I'd stop competing to be honest, I would be so cross. How ridiculous is it that one is allowed to take photos at major shows, Olympics and so forth, but not of their own horses at local shows?!

 

[diggerbez]

If BE really did put rules like that in place it would be just awful - Some of you may remember I had a similar experience at a BD event - my young horse's Medium debut and I was told by the pro photographer who was there that I could not take any photos of MY horse. It was one of the worst experiences of my life, I had flown in all the way from Italy, paid the entry fees (obviously!), etc, only to be told I wasn't allowed to take photos of the horse I owned..!!!!...In that case, the organisers stepped in and said I had every right to continue taking photos (by then I had missed half of the test anyway...) but if a rule explicitly prohibiting any photography on the part of the public was brought in I'd stop competing to be honest, I would be so cross. How ridiculous is it that one is allowed to take photos at major shows, Olympics and so forth, but not of their own horses at local shows?!

thats ridiculous....

 

[teapot]

By the way, did you know shows pay a license fee to use things like freestyle music? So they don't contravene copyright.

Same for shops

 

[Tophambrown]

I don't need to worry about people scanning or lifting from social media sites. As far as I'm concerned, once I've sold a picture I ask for an email address so I can forward on both Hi & Lo res copies of their images. Give & take as far as I'm concerned. If people are happy they will credit without the need to ask!!

 

[GemBav]

Just out of curiosity to all those who buy images from shows......

Would you purchase a JPEG image for you to use for personal use (eg print off your own hard copies, upload and display on forums, selling your horse etc) but not for business (eg promoting you stallion, advertising on websites etc) if the images were priced right but had a small (and I mean small) watermark in a descreet place on the picture that still promotes the photographer but doesn't mark it as copyright or make the photo unsightly?

And at what amount would you consider to be right to purchase this type of photo? xx

 

[Toffee_monster]

The answer to that question is yes ! this is a quite common with photographers now (except the ones stuck in the dark ages)
I sell a lot of Facebook images with small company name on one corner, sell them for £3

 

[kerilli]

Just out of curiosity to all those who buy images from shows......

Would you purchase a JPEG image for you to use for personal use (eg print off your own hard copies, upload and display on forums, selling your horse etc) but not for business (eg promoting you stallion, advertising on websites etc) if the images were priced right but had a small (and I mean small) watermark in a descreet place on the picture that still promotes the photographer but doesn't mark it as copyright or make the photo unsightly?

And at what amount would you consider to be right to purchase this type of photo? xx

Umm, if a super pic, say £8 per image, reduced on a sliding scale if I bought more than 1 diff image from you.

If it's out of focus I'd expect it to be just nominal cost of printing the photo, but I've had people try to charge me full price for appallingly out of focus pics.

Tophambrown, that's a great attitude, love it.

 

[GemBav]

Umm, if a super pic, say £8 per image, reduced on a sliding scale if I bought more than 1 diff image from you.

If it's out of focus I'd expect it to be just nominal cost of printing the photo, but I've had people try to charge me full price for appallingly out of focus pics.

Tophambrown, that's a great attitude, love it.

Can't believe they would try and charge full wack for an out of focus/poor quality photo

 

[Tophambrown]

Thanks Kerilli, works well for me, even outside the equestrian world at other sporting & social events. If your work is of a good standard people will come back to you!! I keep my prices down & my clients happy.

 

[PolarSkye]

I don't disagree that you shouldn't steal them. But equally, I don't think many artists would sell a lot of work if they dictated that after purchase, you could only display it in one place...

I'm really not talking about scenarios where the photographer hasn't been paid in any way, I'm talking about buying a picture and then not being able to display it, for no commercial gain, where you like.

I haven't read this whole thread so, forgive me, this may have been said somewhere else, but . . .

. . . it isn't about "display" it's about publishing. A book is different from a digital photo in that it is much more difficult to republish a book after you have purchased it. Sure, you could scan the contents and then republish, but then you'd be infringing copyright. You can lend YOUR copy to someone else (that's not publishing), you can sell YOUR copy to someone else (that's also not publishing). A photo, just because it's in the form of a "soft" copy, is no different. When you purchase a digital image from a photographer, you secure the right to own that image . . . you can put it on a screen saver, you can display it in your home and you can send it to your friends and family. What you can't do is publish it. Where it gets grey is online. Is putting something on FB publishing? And re "no commercial gain" . . . doesn't using an image to sell something (e.g., your horse) grant you some commercial gain?

I get that photogs have to be more flexible wrt their copyright . . . but I also get that if they took that particular image, and it forms part of their body of work (which is, in the end, how they get more business) then they ought to have a say over what that image can and cannot be used for. Otherwise, they may as well give their work away for free.

P

 

[LazyS]

I think it's the subsequent copies of it that are the problem. you couldn't take images from the book you bought (or quote large sections of it) without getting permission.

is there a time period on photographer's copyright? i'm setting up a website (long story, OH won it and it's a fabulous prize, and he doesn't want it!) and would like to use some old photos of me & my horses competing, I have no idea who took most of them though, no stickers on the backs... argh.

I gave up being a professional when digital came about because I had enough problems with copyright as it was and could forsee trouble from the offset. Anyway the reason behind wishing the picture to be reproduced by the photographer is - it is their income basically.

I now work in the print industry and come up against this time and time again, I think that if the person has not bothered to put a label or stamp on the back of the photo then how will you know who took it and who to pay when you want another copy?
Though I have to say that, we as printers, follow the code of - If in doubt don't copy. People are often just trying to save themselves money which is cheating the photographer out of a living. And it is the printer who gets sued!!! (Licenses can be obtained to do legitimate copying - for a fee of course).

People often ring me and ask me for permission to use my pics (well trained), but then I ALWAYS put a label and the image number (and the year) on the back. These days they get sent a FREE digital image IF I took the photos since 2000 when the negatives (remember them!) were also copied onto CDs. If they were taken before that they are free to copy all they like - I no longer care!

 

[crabbymare]

Personally I think all photographers should do as someone I know does and give a license with all the pictures that lets the person buying use the image for personal online things like facebook and forums and for advertising with no further permission required and just requires that a note is put that they were the photographer. The only time any permission is needed is when the picture is used for editorial or website use which I think is how it should be. I can understand the owners of forums not wanting pro pics posted though as they could be charged by a stroppy photographer in accoprdance with the nuj rates which are designed for big sites rather than the posts on here for reports sharing what the horse did or did not do!