A question about pro pics

SpottedCat

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 May 2007
Messages
11,668
Visit site
This is something I've been pondering for a while.

When I buy a book, it is perfectly fine for me to donate it to a charity shop for them to resell. Or for me to resell it via Amazon or on eBay etc. I can lend it to a friend too, that's ok as well. All of these things result in the author not getting royalties from someone buying a copy of their book.

Why is it not ok for me to buy a print then display it however I like, including on the Internet, especially given that buying a copy will be of no interest to anyone else?

I'm not asking for a recap on copyright law - although I'd be interested to know how this differs for books. What I am wondering is why, when I have spent the money with the photographer, they are so precious about how I display the pictures?
 

popsdosh

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 November 2008
Messages
6,388
Visit site
I think a lot try it on .I have seen a lot of people try and get around the protection on photographers websites,how many times on here have you seen photos that have obviously been lifted from their websites.I am not sure,so I may be wrong but if the picture is of you they cannot stop you doing what you want with it once you have purchased it.
I do have some sympathies with them in that they are running a business and spend a lot of time at events with expensive equipment.
The problem is once you display that photo on the internet it can be copied very easily.
I think the example of the book is maybe slightly different in that if you copied that book and tried to distribute it in whatever form you would be liable under copywrite law.I suspect they would argue that if you wished to sell your print as the one and only they could do nothing about it.
Most event photographers will sell you the digital file which will then allow you to do whatever you want with it.
 
Last edited:

kerilli

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 April 2002
Messages
27,417
Location
Lovely Northamptonshire again!
Visit site
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.
 

photo_jo

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 June 2010
Messages
1,809
Visit site
This is something I've been pondering for a while.

When I buy a book, it is perfectly fine for me to donate it to a charity shop for them to resell. Or for me to resell it via Amazon or on eBay etc. I can lend it to a friend too, that's ok as well. All of these things result in the author not getting royalties from someone buying a copy of their book.

Why is it not ok for me to buy a print then display it however I like, including on the Internet, especially given that buying a copy will be of no interest to anyone else?

I'm not asking for a recap on copyright law - although I'd be interested to know how this differs for books. What I am wondering is why, when I have spent the money with the photographer, they are so precious about how I display the pictures?

I do think many of the photographers get a bit fired up over it-If someone has bought a photo from me then I am very happy for them to use it on facebook, forums and the like and to sell a horse etc etc (nice to get a credit but not essential)-I do draw the line on people using them to advertise goods or stallions so would expect a fee for that-what I don't allow is people to take photos off my website and use them without paying for them bearing in mind a web image is not expensive at £3 so less than a drink in the pub!
 
Last edited:

photo_jo

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 June 2010
Messages
1,809
Visit site
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.

Does this mean I need to be going through the archives:rolleyes:
 

SpottedCat

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 May 2007
Messages
11,668
Visit site
But who is going to take copies of it?! And why?! If it is an image of me, who else is going to buy it?

PhotoJo, £3 is reasonable. The £8 per image one photographer wanted is not, especially since I had spent over £40 with them.

I'm not talking about stealing images off websites, I'm talking about when I've bought a print, not being able to (for example) scan it and display it electronically.

I've decided in 2012 that if I'm not allowed to do that by a photographer/can't buy a reasonably priced jpg then I won't buy a pic from them.
 

vallin

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 April 2009
Messages
5,016
Location
Cambridge
Visit site
But you wouldn't scan in a whole book and put it on ebay for everyone to read would you? It comes under the same thing, it's just it's easier to copy a one page photo than a 100page book.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the £3 jpgs, got to move with the times and all!
 

Dizzco

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 January 2012
Messages
52
Location
Monmouthshire
Visit site
I have seen several photographers that now sell a USB stick with an electronic version of your purchased image specifically for this reason - they even advertise them as for use on social networking sites etc.
 

SpottedCat

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 May 2007
Messages
11,668
Visit site
Not really the same Vallin - in the book example, I resell the book, the author misses out on royalties from someone who presumably was interested enough in the book that they might have bought it anyway. My selling of the book has taken revenue away from them. I buy a print. It's of me, and noone else is likely to buy it. I then want to show it to friends so I put it online. None of those friends would have bought it, so no revenue lost, and anyway, if they'd come into my house they'd have looked at it anyway.
 

TarrSteps

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 January 2007
Messages
10,891
Location
Surrey
Visit site
I'm sure most photographers will go that way. It's just something a lot of professionals feel hot under the collar about as they're so used to being stolen from and people defending their actions by saying ' because I want to.' And then complaining because there isn't a photographer at a show or their services are too expensive. If a pair of trainers is too expensive you don't go out and steal them. ;)
 

TarrSteps

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 January 2007
Messages
10,891
Location
Surrey
Visit site
It isn't revenue driven, it's copyright driven. The underlying legal issue is not whether or not you are taking revenue from the owner of the image, it's that the image IS owned and you don't have the right to publish it without permission. The key here is that putting anything on the internet is publishing.

Btw, you're not supposed to reprint more than 20% of song lyrics under US copyright law. But clearly they've had to virtually give up on that! But private forums can still be hinky about it as if they DO get caught they are liable for prosecution.
 

SpottedCat

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 May 2007
Messages
11,668
Visit site
I am completely unconvinced the fuss photographers make is due to their respect for copyright laws rather than their feeling that they are somehow being done out of revenue.... ;)
 

TarrSteps

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 January 2007
Messages
10,891
Location
Surrey
Visit site
Perhaps. But the fuss forums make, especially ones owned by large publishing companies, is likely quite motivated by the wish to avoid trouble. ;)

Also, artists are surprisingly sticky about their intellectual property. And why not? Whether or not you think it's their actual motivation, the law says you cannot steal the fruits of someone else's labours. No doubt it will be amended but it hasn't been yet and technology is moving faster than that process is designed to allow for.
 

SpottedCat

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 May 2007
Messages
11,668
Visit site
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.
 

Booboos

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 January 2008
Messages
12,776
Location
South of France
Visit site
A lot of aspects of copyright law are very dodgy in practice. My Uni library pays a blanket copyright fee for us to be able to photocopy for course packs, etc. but we still have to adhere to strict rules (no more than one article per journal issue or 10%/one chapter per book).

As an author it's very difficult to impossible to ever see these fees as they stay with the publisher who doesn't bother passing them on.

As for photographers they all seem to do their own thing. Some say nothing about it on their websites, some ask for an extra fee for the right to use digital images for pleasure, others simply ask for permission. Personally I think that if you are using the photo for personal, pleasure or educational reasons it should be free. If you are making money a percentage should go back to the photographer.
 

pinktiger

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 November 2007
Messages
2,681
Visit site
i do totally understand due to the nature of websites/photographers displaying for purchasing reasons, the vunerability they risk in terms of people stealing images and them trying to run a business (not paying for said image and displaying for mates to see on networking sites and other public forum as an example) !!


They have to make a living and if everyone did it they would go out of business in a week!! We all love to look at photos after an event and i think due to iphones cheap (good) cameras they fight a tough battle as it is tbh! So i do sort of feel for them in one respect!!

HOWEVER!!!!!!! I really dont get a couple of things with photographers, a) one recently took a picture of my friend having a (lets say) gymnastic session off a young horse and the photographer captured it,, we saw it, all stood round laughing at it,,, 'said photographer's' assistant got snotty as we were clearly looking,,, and had no intentions at all of purchasing it for £20! (so why upload the image or take it at all duhhh, i dont know many ppl who have a pic of them crashing to the ground hung in a frame on the wall,, (i kno there will be exceptions ofcourse)!?


SECONDLY (b when i buy my image or images i do feel,, rightly or wrongly, that they are probably of me or my horse, and part of the cost of purchase means i also OWN the copyright. So that in the future i dont have to go running on bended knees for PERMISSION!!!! Does annoy the heck out of me! Its also the reason why i bought a good camera for £40 and take my own pics(have photographer(family.friend,oddbod) or have them taken for me!
 

TarrSteps

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 January 2007
Messages
10,891
Location
Surrey
Visit site
SECONDLY (b when i buy my image or images i do feel,, rightly or wrongly, that they are probably of me or my horse, and part of the cost of purchase means i also OWN the copyright.

That would be wrongly, then. ;) After all, if you purchase a book that mentions you by name you don't own the copyright to the book. :)

The using images of people in a whole 'nother situation. When you go to a horse show you effectively give permission to let your image be used. If someone took a photo of you in your school at home and posted it without your permission, that would be a different story and you would be well within your rights to pursue the person. (This assumes you haven't copyrighted your image, of course.) Then there are separate laws regarding people in performances etc. - try publishing a history book about a theatre, say, where you have to get permission from every single person in every single photo . . . (In reality this only ever gets done because most performers will have signed a release to an agency but if you have people in the photos who have not, tough luck, no photo.)

If you buy a painting, say, you have the right to display that painting wherever you choose for non-commercial purposes, say at a friend's house or in a window that it visible from the street. You do not have the right to publish it, say by using it as an illustration in a book or putting it on a website. (People do and don't get caught, of course, but then people steal trainers and don't get caught. ;) )

Out of curiosity, SC, if you wrote a report for a client and it appeared on someone else's site without your knowledge or permission, would you be absolutely fine with it? Even if you would be, lots of people would not.

The things is these are LAWS and they are laws that predate the internet. Yes, they are changing but they are very old and very complicated and that can't be done overnight.

As Booboos mentioned, you think this is complicated, try sorting out copyright laws in the land of academe! (Where lots of people now believe blatant plagiarism is just fine because everything on the internet is public property, don't you know. ;) )
 

Chez

Member
Joined
26 September 2010
Messages
24
Visit site
Sorry to sound a bit thick about this but to clarify. If I spend £10 on a photo in a frame then scan that photo and put it on my Facebook I'm braking the law? Have I not bought the rights to the photo? What difference is putting it on my Facebook to having it hanging in my house for people to see?
 

TarrSteps

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 January 2007
Messages
10,891
Location
Surrey
Visit site
Short answer, yes you are. Realistically most photographers won't care as you're not using it for business purposes, but that's a bit like companies overlooking people taking home a few post-it notes. ;)

I have no idea how facebook doesn't get sued over stuff like that. Maybe they do and they settle (that happens quite a bit, even over big things like books and television programs) or they fall into a special category.

If it's hanging on your wall you haven't published it. It's in its original form, identifiable as the photographer's work and they have sold you the image for that purpose. They have not sold you digital publishing rights. Although, as many people have mentioned, the vast majority of photographers now offer that option.
 

pinktiger

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 November 2007
Messages
2,681
Visit site
Sorry to sound a bit thick about this but to clarify. If I spend £10 on a photo in a frame then scan that photo and put it on my Facebook I'm braking the law? Have I not bought the rights to the photo? What difference is putting it on my Facebook to having it hanging in my house for people to see?


yes i believe that would be against copyright legislation!!


TS! When reproducing someones hard work and time and effort (years or research when writing a book) i can understand, a book commands a varied pay structure ie,, its not just the writer that gets the payment!!

When its a photo of myself or my property i believe i should have more rights once the purchase is made!! For example i once saw a picture of me and my horse used as promotion for someones site!!! NOW i dont think thats fair either as the image is of me, and i at no point gave permission for it to be used,, swings and roundabouts i believe!!

I think the line is very grey, and like i said to stop any confusion for the photographers i now take and use ,as i wish, my own images taken from iphones (very good cameras now) Or my own digital one!!!
 

SpottedCat

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 May 2007
Messages
11,668
Visit site
Out of curiosity, SC, if you wrote a report for a client and it appeared on someone else's site without your knowledge or permission, would you be absolutely fine with it? Even if you would be, lots of people would not.

Once the client has paid for it, as long as they don't alter it, they can do what they like with it! My company is named on every page, and TBH I can't get fussy about that kind of thing because virtually every report I write does get published online and is freely available to anyone to download, because all planning applications are made available on the internet, with all submissions, via the planning portal.

Maybe that's why I find it odd - the client has paid for my work, I have produced said work, and they have paid. How they then choose to distribute it is up to them.
 

Santa_Claus

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 November 2001
Messages
22,282
Location
Wiltshire/Hampshire ish!
www.katiemortimore.com
The reason posting a pic online even if you brought the jpg never mind a print is illegal is because when uploaded to the Internet you are effectively creating a new copy which breaks the copyright.

Some pros are very and overly pinickity about copyright whereas some are realistic like photo_jo. There is a strong chance I will start doing some pro work later this year and if I do basically you can buy a print a hi-res jpg or a low res suitable for Facebook jpg. As long as one of those three have been purchased then I won't have issue with it being copied online except for commercial use. It will be blatantly obvious if they haven't paid as would be a watermarked copy. If a watermarked copy is used I will seek to get it removed. ;)

I hate looking at Facebook and seeing friends who have albums full of photos with copyright on which i know they haven't paid a penny for. They are the ones properly stealing.

Oh and Kerilli I believe copyright lasts 60 years which is the same as books films etc though I could be wrong as that's just a number that sticks in the back of my head!
 

vallin

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 April 2009
Messages
5,016
Location
Cambridge
Visit site
The reason posting a pic online even if you brought the jpg never mind a print is illegal is because when uploaded to the Internet you are effectively creating a new copy which breaks the copyright.

Some pros are very and overly pinickity about copyright whereas some are realistic like photo_jo. There is a strong chance I will start doing some pro work later this year and if I do basically you can buy a print a hi-res jpg or a low res suitable for Facebook jpg. As long as one of those three have been purchased then I won't have issue with it being copied online except for commercial use. It will be blatantly obvious if they haven't paid as would be a watermarked copy. If a watermarked copy is used I will seek to get it removed. ;)

I hate looking at Facebook and seeing friends who have albums full of photos with copyright on which i know they haven't paid a penny for. They are the ones properly stealing.

Oh and Kerilli I believe copyright lasts 60 years which is the same as books films etc though I could be wrong as that's just a number that sticks in the back of my head!

Haha, I've just read the copyright bit on you're website :D (Am currently in the process of working with a friend to code my own site to try and encouraage people to give me photographywork experience so am nosey-ing at everyone else's for ideas :) )
 

Santa_Claus

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 November 2001
Messages
22,282
Location
Wiltshire/Hampshire ish!
www.katiemortimore.com
Haha, I've just read the copyright bit on you're website :D (Am currently in the process of working with a friend to code my own site to try and encouraage people to give me photographywork experience so am nosey-ing at everyone else's for ideas :) )

Not sure if you are looking at old or new site aka before or after married but yes I thought I would be a bit amusing with the wording on my new one ;) :D
 

diggerbez

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 March 2008
Messages
8,053
Visit site
For example i once saw a picture of me and my horse used as promotion for someones site!!! NOW i dont think thats fair either as the image is of me, and i at no point gave permission for it to be used,, swings and roundabouts i believe!!

i always think that this is an interesting one. i would actually love it if someone used a photo of me for promo purposes (unlikley :rolleyes:) BUT...legally are they allowed to without my permission? is it actually in the T&Cs anywhere when you fill out your entry form for a competition that you agree to this? as i said, i'm not actually bothered- but i am interested in the legal side of it....
 

Santa_Claus

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 November 2001
Messages
22,282
Location
Wiltshire/Hampshire ish!
www.katiemortimore.com
If you are in a public place then you are technically agreeing to have your photo taken. It does get more complicated though if the photo is going to be used for commercial reasons hence you get all the furore of celebs having their pics taken but if they are in public they have no choice, but it's why you don't see pics of them in their own homes. For safety if being used for commercial purposes and your not a pap then there are consent forms often used.

I wouldn't be surprised to see something within BEs T&Cs regarding togs. I have certainly seen local events put a bit in their schedules.

You are also in your rights to ask for a pic to be removed from a commercial website of a tog if you haven't signed a disclaimer. The reason celebs can't is that they are deemed to have volunteered to have their life displayed to the public by whatever action that made them a celeb. For this reason their young children's faces would normally be blurred ad they would be seen not to have given permission unless actively becoming actors etc!

All very messy area as a whole and if I do go pro at all I will be doing a lot more reading up on the particulars before I set out ;)
 
Top