to those who copy copyright images..

C

CameraGirl

New User
Joined
18 January 2011
Messages
4
Location
Somewhere.
Visit site
A little birdy told me that a group of photographers are starting to get together and are going to start legal action against those who copyright photos.

from one little birdy to another.

xx
 
please can you tell me, if i have bought a copy of a photo, does that give me the right to reproduce it on something like here? i guess not. would i have to ask to get express permission to use it on something like this board?
my avatar pic was taken by my then-boyfriend, btw. ;) ;)
 
kerilli said:
please can you tell me, if i have bought a copy of a photo, does that give me the right to reproduce it on something like here? i guess not. would i have to ask to get express permission to use it on something like this board?
my avatar pic was taken by my then-boyfriend, btw. ;) ;)
Click to expand...

Technically you should but I doubt anyone would get that worried about it as long as the photo had been bought initially. If someone was using it to sell something other than a private sale of horse that would be different but it certainly wouldn't bother me if a bought image was used on a forum-just as well I see a few:D:D
 
Last edited:
Nope, I have been told off for on here for posting photos I have bought.

Apparantly the photographer owns the copyright, you just buy a copy off them.

Miserable so and so's. I bought the picture from them, not exactly stealing it am I!!

Sorry, particular hate of mine!!
 
I'm glad the litlle birdies have lots of money to spend on this - I don't see how a group of photographers can get together and sue 1 person unless that 1 person has stolen off them all? For a class action like this they would all have to be a victim of the same person?

Legally how is this going to work? And what they win, if they win is never going to cover their legal fees - especially if they go through small claims court, as they would struggle to prove that this one person has cost them more than £5k if they have stolen a £10 photo and neither party can claim their legal fees of the other party.

What are they suing for?
 
Its high time the copyright laws were brought up to date. As a very able and intelegent judge said in a case I was involved in . She warned the defendents (The Ministry of Defence /RAF) that it was always the seemingly small and insignificant cases that turned case law on its head . :DThey practicaly fell over themselves to settle the case after that comment:D Incidentaly did you know that as a member of the armed forces ,you are a servant of the crown ,and as a servant you have no right toi pay, it is an allowance . :eek:
 
I guess you are meaning using a photos with a water mark on them?

I buy all of mine, and I try to ask the photographer every time if I can put them online. If given the option I will always buy the jpeg. However some sites don't give you the option to buy the jpeg, so I email for the ok for me to scan and use it on my website/facebook/forum etc.

Am I doing something wrong?

Also its such a shame that photographers charge per jpeg, yet take 10 photos of you on your horse and don't offer a good discount for the whole lot. not that I would buy them every time, but I never buy more than 2 photos at an event so even a bonus discount worth two photos plus £5 would make them a bit of money and encourage people to buy the lot.
 
My friend is a photographer and he doesn't mind me putting the images on fb for example as they are low quality and covered in watermark but people often ask who the photographer is and then they buy their images from the day. He allows me to put them on but legally do I have to have written permission?
 
I personally think people should pay for photo's before using them on Forums/Facebook etc etc! A friend of mine had someone photoshop the watermark off a photo she took and put it on their facebook stating they had done just that.... Lowest of the low! These photographers are out to make a living so whether its a couple of pound to buy the digital copy or more for an actual print then i think people should pay!
 
If people want to post the image on the internet then they should buy the jpeg option of the photo from the photographer.

It always has been, and always will be, ILLEGAL to reproduce a physical photograph, whether you have purchased it or not, i.e. scan it or take a photo of a photo, etc. Therein lies the problem, it is the reproduction rather than the posting that offends, so best buy the jpeg and then everyone is happy!
 
Not making any comment about the merits of the case itself but by and large, before you go to court, you are expected to have exhausted all other avenues of negotiations, including a written cease and desist notice and usually mediation. I was advised that judges look unfavourably on plaintiffs that go straight to court (separate case but relevant none-the-less). I also don't quite see how a photographer would claim large damages - they would be able to claim for the loss of income, ie. the value of the photograph if it had sold but I don't see that would cover legal fees, or even the cost of submitting a small claim in the county court? Very difficult and I would be quite sympathetic to the photographers plight here.
 
An interesting conundrum.

If a photographer's picture is on the web (forum, etc.), then it is, as far as I am concerned, adverstising. Effectively it is showcasing their skills and abilities. I've seen some pictures where I would very much like to know who the photographer is as I'd like to use them/would look for them :)
 
Slight aside but .... If you think back to years ago, a photographer would go to say a pony club XC. They would have to keep a not of who was who, say small white pony with pink hat is number 52. Then trawl through all the images matching up photos to people. Print them all out, address envelopes and pay for a stmp to send them out. Then people would place orders.

The new method of uploading on to their own site is much much cheaper and easier for them. Yes some get stolen but I would be interested to know if their profits are up or down in recent years. Is the amount they lose in thefts more or less than the cost in time and materials to post out thumbnails?
 
i got told off on here for using an image that i have a hard copy of at home ina nice frame after spending £80 with the photographer - the image i used was the image they emailed to me to see if i wanted to buy it (along with the others - i bought the whole set to comemerate the occasion) - but apparently that's still wrong
 
I work in the intellectual property field, and the (admittedly very outdated) law on copyright is crystal clear that when a photographer sells you a copy (electronic or paper) of an image they retain their right to prevent you from publishing (e.g. on a public forum) that image unless they have explicitly licensed you to publish it.

So, if the photographer sells you a jpeg image or paper print with an explicit statement to the effect that you can publish it for private use then that's fine. If there is no such statement/explicit permission then the photographer has the right to ask you to cease publishing his/her image, and the right to take legal action if you do not.

Doesn't matter what any of you (or me!) think is right, or fair, them's the rules! If you don't like it then lobby parliament for a change of law...

ETS - The point of the above really is that paying for a copy of the image is not enough if you want to be able to use it on facebook, HHO etc - you also need the explicit permission to publish.
 
Last edited:
Weezy said:
It always has been, and always will be, ILLEGAL to reproduce a physical photograph, whether you have purchased it or not, i.e. scan it or take a photo of a photo, etc. Therein lies the problem, it is the reproduction rather than the posting that offends, so best buy the jpeg and then everyone is happy!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't think this is 100% right. I haven't looked at the act or case law for a good while, but I'm pretty sure that uploading a jpeg to photobucket etc (for e.g. publication on here) would be considered "reproduction" of the jpeg image.

Anyway, as discussed above, the critical issue is permission to reproduce online (publish), whether the image is digital or printed. Having said that, when photographers sell jpeg images they almost always include this permission as standard, so you are usually safe when buying a jpeg!
 
ArcticFox said:
I guess you are meaning using a photos with a water mark on them?

I buy all of mine, and I try to ask the photographer every time if I can put them online. If given the option I will always buy the jpeg. However some sites don't give you the option to buy the jpeg, so I email for the ok for me to scan and use it on my website/facebook/forum etc.

Am I doing something wrong?

.
Click to expand...

No you are dead right and everyone should do the same.

When you buy a printed photograph from a photographer all you are buying is the print, the photographer retains copyright, unless they expressly say otherwise. Normally photographers are quite happy to sell digital images but they are within their rights to put conditions on this and charge extra. Scanning and uploading a bought print is a big no no, as is stealing photos from websites. It is just the same as pirating music, films or whatever but normally the person you are harming is an individual or small business rather than a massive corporation.

And there are losses made by the photographer beyond just the sale price of an image if his image is ripped off. He may wish to sell copyright to someone else to use for advertising or something. And a poor quality reproduction (like a scan of a print) can harm his reputation.
 
smurf said:
Slight aside but .... If you think back to years ago, a photographer would go to say a pony club XC. They would have to keep a not of who was who, say small white pony with pink hat is number 52. Then trawl through all the images matching up photos to people. Print them all out, address envelopes and pay for a stmp to send them out. Then people would place orders.

The new method of uploading on to their own site is much much cheaper and easier for them. Yes some get stolen but I would be interested to know if their profits are up or down in recent years. Is the amount they lose in thefts more or less than the cost in time and materials to post out thumbnails?
Click to expand...

I run an image library (with a collection of 2 million images) and license images for a living so would like to think I'm fairly well-versed on this subject. Won't repeat everything Katie_A says, but fully agree with her.

From my sector of the industry, our sales have been very much down since our images have been available on-line. Yes, it's great that they're more accessible, but it means more and more people help themselves to them and we therefore lose out on any money to be made.
 
I ask permission when I buy images, but there are some togs who are much more pro-active. The shot in my avatar was taken by Marilyn Sweet, they offer the standard prints and services but they are first to offer the sale of the image digitally and they include the permission to reproduce for non-commercial purposes when you buy.
 
the problem with the nicking of photos with the copyright watermarks on them is that people probably wouldn't buy them anyway...so really the photographer isn't losing out? i'm not saying that its right but i doubt very much that photographers have lost much business by people doing this. if people like the pics they will actually buy good quality ones....and the ones they nick and put on fbook are probably the not very good ones that they wouldn't have bought anyway.

i rarely buy pics as they are stupidly expensive. i actually splased out on 3 from the weekend because they were good pics of my horse over interesting fences. i would buy more if i could buy the actual jpegs quite cheaply... i know photographers are running a business but there is a line isn't there between selling a few at big cost or a lot at cheap cost....? if photogrpahers encouraged people to bring a pen drive with them they could sell the photos without having the cost of the printer paper/ink etc :)
 
posie_honey said:
i got told off on here for using an image that i have a hard copy of at home ina nice frame after spending £80 with the photographer - the image i used was the image they emailed to me to see if i wanted to buy it (along with the others - i bought the whole set to comemerate the occasion) - but apparently that's still wrong
Click to expand...

Ditto - and I got some nasty PMs (from the photographer) into the bargain too! I'd paid for the photos (quite a lot actually) and was made to feel like a criminal (I guess to the letter of the law, according to the above statements, I am!!)
Way to make me want to buy LEGALLY again?!?!:rolleyes:
 
on the other hand....you could say that photgraphs of people on websites are showcasing and therefore advertising the photographers skills, therefore, do they have express permission to show you and your horse on a publicly open website? in a way thats free advertising!


not that im bothered either way, i never buy pics unless its an absolutely outstanding one and round here the photograhers never seem to be that great anyway!
 
only_me said:
Nope, I have been told off for on here for posting photos I have bought.

Apparantly the photographer owns the copyright, you just buy a copy off them.

Miserable so and so's. I bought the picture from them, not exactly stealing it am I!!

Sorry, particular hate of mine!!
Click to expand...

correct.

just becase you bought a copy - the tog still has copyright.....

pees me off people using my pics everywhere just because they have a copy...wheres the credit????

thats why. :)
 
Many photographers are being pro-active and allowing people to reproduce images if they receive credit or are selling jpegs for small fees. There were some long threads on it on here, one photographer (might have been Mr Figjam) had done all kinds of things including selling cheap jpegs and buy one print get all your jpegs free but people still stole images from his website.

At the end of the day if you like an image enough to put it on facebook then you should be prepared to pay the person who created it.

If a photographer only sells expensive prints then email them after the event and say whilst you have no intention of buying a print because money is tight and you don't want any more prints due to lack of space you would love low res digital copies for personal use and ask whether they would be prepared to do you a deal.

They probably won't sell a high res version cheaply because you could go and get your own prints done and not only is that giving the printing business to someone else the photographer again loses control of the image and the quality.

Talk to the photographers if they aren't offering what you want, chances are they will be keen to do a deal.
 
georgiegirl said:
on the other hand....you could say that photgraphs of people on websites are showcasing and therefore advertising the photographers skills, therefore, do they have express permission to show you and your horse on a publicly open website? in a way thats free advertising!


not that im bothered either way, i never buy pics unless its an absolutely outstanding one and round here the photograhers never seem to be that great anyway!
Click to expand...


The photographer does not require your permission to put photos of you anywhere he likes. The image was created by him and he retains control, he can even sell the image to someone else if he choses.
 
dieseldog said:
I don't get why photographers charge more for a digital copy than a real copy?
Click to expand...

Often for a low res jpeg they don't.

But they do need to bear in mind that if they sell you a print they get the mark up not just on the actual picture but on the printing too, and if you want a second copy for you mum or whatever then you will have to go back to them and they will charge you the same again. If they sell a decent sized jpeg you can reproduce it as many times as you want in whatever format you want. So while the jpeg might be more expensive than a small print there is nothing to stop you having it printed onto a massive canvas.

You may find that you are buying the image free from copyright so you are effectively paying for the photographer no longer having the chance to do anything else with the image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top