to those who copy copyright images..

KristmasKatt said:
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.
Click to expand...

this is interesting...where would you stand legally if a photographer had a pic of you on their website that you didn't want on there for some reason... if its at a comp you haven't given them permission to take a picture of you (never recall seeing anything in the T&Cs of entering a comp)- so surely thats an invasion of your privacy? I'm thinking along the lines of google earth here- they had to blank out people's faces didn't they? (i'm not really bothered btw, its just interesting :) )
 
the shows i go to hardly ever have photographers, and even if they do there's usually less/none of me :confused::confused: so i just get my mum or dad to take pics, lol. most of them are quite good, and there's more of them too
 
I have asked on several occasions if it would be OK to do 'something' with a picture I have bought. Each time I have been told 'yes no problem but just to acknowledge if poss the photographer.

I am sure most photographers would be OK with this - if they get the option to say yes or no..
 
I think you'd be limited to asking them nicely to take it down. A photo of you at a public competition taken by a photographer with permission from the organisers to take pictures for commercial purposes is unlikely to be considered an invasion of privacy. I think the issue with google earth was that people were pictured who were in their homes, and people were pictured doing things that gave away details of their lives and could affect their reputation etc.

Generally for the courts to be interested there has to be a pretty gross invasion of privacy, otherwise the paparazzi would struggle to earn a living, afterall their job is to take pictures of people without permission and get the pictures published in as many places as possible!

Not that I'm defending the paps!
 
KristmasKatt said:
I think you'd be limited to asking them nicely to take it down. A photo of you at a public competition taken by a photographer with permission from the organisers to take pictures for commercial purposes is unlikely to be considered an invasion of privacy. I think the issue with google earth was that people were pictured who were in their homes, and people were pictured doing things that gave away details of their lives and could affect their reputation etc.

Generally for the courts to be interested there has to be a pretty gross invasion of privacy, otherwise the paparazzi would struggle to earn a living, afterall their job is to take pictures of people without permission and get the pictures published in as many places as possible!

Not that I'm defending the paps!
Click to expand...

ah yes that makes sense :p:p
 
Would like to know how having a watermarked image on a forum monetarily or otherwise damages the photographer - esp when watermarks are usually the photographers website address?

So how much of this is just acknowledging the photographer?

if so, i dont see why a link back/ 'picture taken by blah' when an image is posted isnt allowed like in the good old days of the internet, as opposed to everything clamouring on about legal cases?

Also photogs might help themselves by not charging more for a jpeg than a print - perhaps a special price for personal (forum) use, and another for use for advertising the horse, as a lot of people would only want a pic for personal use.

Not taking sides, just interested to know the above.
 
A question for the photographers - I am about to order 5 photos from some horse trials last year they are going to cost me a fair bit (around £70 in total) and at the same time I would like to ask if I may scan them to use on FB for my personal use, I mean the worst they can say is now and if they do this I will ask if I can buy low res jpegs :). But how should I word this in an e-mail?


I do wonder though how many people do buy multiple copies and whether once you buy a print of a certain size or value the photographer should offer a free lower resolution jpeg.
 
Many photographers do these types of offers, but not all. I'll try to find the thread about it on here, it was interesting to hear the photographers view on it all.
 
I think I will e-mail and ask them then :), 1 photographer local to me does offer all prints copyright free at not extra cost but he has still had to close his website as people were nicking them which I have to say has resulted in me not buying a few photos I would have done.
 
KristmasKatt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Surely that has massive child protection implications?!?! I know for a fact we have to have written and detailed permissions from parents regarding photographs of their children and there are many parents who will not allow any photograph of their child in the public domain.

Infact I am always suprised that for events where children are photographed written consent to photograph is not asked for.
 
Katie_A said:
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!
Click to expand...


Sorry, I should have said the jpeg option that allows you to reproduce the image wherever you like :) Yes it is expensive, but at least it is legal :)
 
A few years ago (maybe 4 or 5) we were amazed to discover Rosie and her spotty horse were the April 'pin-up' picture in the Pony Club calendar. We knew nothing about it until a friend mentioned it.
Do think the publisher might have sent a few free copies but there you go!
 
Why don't photographers just sell the image in its entirety? Copyright included so that non of this complete pain in the arse would happen when people want to put their photos up on forums.

99.99% of the images wouldn't be reusable in other circumstances anyway.

It wouldn't stop theives from stealing photos from sites but the people who do pay money (too much in my mind for individual photos) actually gets their money worth and can enjoy their memories without worrying some photographer is going to get their knickers in a twist if little Tiffy wants to show her PC mates online what she did this weekend.
 
this issue keeps arising in our area with sj images. the thing is a lot of children and young people only really want the image to post on facebook. the hard copies are for me to file in a cardboard box and grandma to put in her boasting book. i have suggested to one of the photographers that he sells the fb image and posts it online. what else are they going to use it for? i think he would sell more too!
 
I wonder if there's a statute of limitations on these images? What if.....

...you've bought prints from a photographer years ago (say, 5) and you'd then like to have an electronic image of it. But you can't remember who you bought it from - who the photographer was...or maybe even WHERE exactly it was taken. You just like the image and want to scan it.

Or what if it's more like 10 years ago....

20?


Surely there has to be a limit....
 
Ginn said:
Surely that has massive child protection implications?!?! I know for a fact we have to have written and detailed permissions from parents regarding photographs of their children and there are many parents who will not allow any photograph of their child in the public domain.

Infact I am always suprised that for events where children are photographed written consent to photograph is not asked for.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, as a photographer I am obvious - I am either in the ring or just outside it, and if someone asks not to be photographed, or for their child not to be photographed, I would instantly stop taking pictures and delete any I had taken of that child. This has only happened to me once, and it wasn't a child, but a horse that 'didn't like the sound of the shutter'!!

I have seen quite a few - some very good - professional photographers go under recently, very sad. I think it's a combination of tough financial times and the availability of photos to view online. Particularly kids, who would have pestered mum and dad to buy them a photo to show off to their friends, just stick the watermarked version on FB and show it off there. There's also the fact the digital SLR cameras are relatively cheap now and a lot of people have them, and just take millions of their own pics.

I for one cannot be bothered to try to make money from photography, but wish every success to those who do.
 
HuggyBear said:
Why don't photographers just sell the image in its entirety? Copyright included so that non of this complete pain in the arse would happen when people want to put their photos up on forums.

99.99% of the images wouldn't be reusable in other circumstances anyway.

It wouldn't stop theives from stealing photos from sites but the people who do pay money (too much in my mind for individual photos) actually gets their money worth and can enjoy their memories without worrying some photographer is going to get their knickers in a twist if little Tiffy wants to show her PC mates online what she did this weekend.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with every word of this.
 
I have yet to see a photographer chase across the internet to tell me off for using an image that have paid for.

I can see the point if I have taken the image, took off the watermark then posted OR used the net image with the watermark on it. Thats bad but something I have paid money for anyways hmmmm not gonna make money off of taking people to court and just going to put people off buying from proffs in my book :)
 
I would never consider photoshopping a watermark off a piccy! I would much rather pay for the jpeg!

I also don't use water marked pics either.

Maybe photographers could do the following:

Sell Jpegs instead of printed copies at a reasonable rate
offer a bulk deal on all the pics they took of your horse
have an option when you buy the image to purchase total copyright
make thumbnails really small to stop people from stealing them.
Make sure their watermark has their website on it so that when you tick the box on FB to say you own copyright, they can do sweeping checks to find out!

Can't think of anything else!

:D
 
there is a vague possibility in a year or so I may look to go semi pro with my photography, (but not before a serious camera upgrade ;) ) which would naturally include at least something to do with horses and copyright issues and how to make some profit are my biggest hurdles by far and I am currently trying to work out my best course of action. For me the logical route is to sell the images as a whole copyright free in jpg form and having a sufficiently hideous watermark that people can 'see' the image but won't bother nicking it when displayed on my website. I'm yet to find a suitably hideous watermark though, but I have time to perfect that!

In terms of a lawsuit happening I would be surprised but I do think that copyright laws do need some serious updating. I also think SOME professional photographers need to buck up their ideas. I didn't buy a single photo last year for the most because I refused to pay £15 for a 6x8 print or £25 for the Jpg version for a positively mediocre photo. The one event where there was a decent photo I would have normally been tempted to buy (still £15 though!), one of the other photographers (same company different fence) cost me a placing by positioning themselves in an idiotic place (they were told to move soon after I went round!) so on point of principle I wasn't giving them money when they deprived me of some! :p

I think it really would be interesting to see what level of sales having different price points and offerings resulted in. Maybe I can experiment with that in a year or so ;)
 
Also, can I just say how irksome it is for a anon post by an obviously regular user. If it is actually truthful and not just a couple of photographers Pm'ing each other on the forum and having a natter, then post under your usual user-name.

The cloak and dagger warning post is so last year.
 
Ginn said:
Surely that has massive child protection implications?!?! I know for a fact we have to have written and detailed permissions from parents regarding photographs of their children and there are many parents who will not allow any photograph of their child in the public domain.

Infact I am always suprised that for events where children are photographed written consent to photograph is not asked for.
Click to expand...

I believe that organisations such as Pony Club, only have to ensure that any published pics do not appear with the members name.
 
Santa_Claus said:
In terms of a lawsuit happening I would be surprised but I do think that copyright laws do need some serious updating.
Click to expand...

The Government are currently debating amendments to the current copyright laws.

However, if anyone wants information on the guidance given to professionals re photographing children, privacy law re photography, and copyright then feel free to contact me.

People fail to see the bigger picture re copyright. It's a law that many people dismiss as unnecessary, but if they actually stopped to think about how life around them works, they'd realise that the laws of copyright are very important. You cannot have one rule for a person trying to make money from taking photographs at a small local show, and another for someone taking images for a newspaper article. There has to be consistency across the board.
 
Noodlejaffa said:
However, if anyone wants information on the guidance given to professionals re photographing children, privacy law re photography, and copyright then feel free to contact me.
Click to expand...

Thanks I may well do at some point in the future. As said its a pipe idea at the moment and dependant on what happens in the next year or so job/life wise ;)

In terms of child protection I don't know the full deal but as far as I'm aware PCs and similar make it clear on the schedules that a photographer will be in attendance (and believe under PC rules CRB checks may well be a necessity) and the entry is taken as giving express permission to allow photos to be taken. Tis an area I potentially will have to do a lot of swatting up on though ;)
 
CameraGirl said:
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
Click to expand...

If photographers at events weren't such an avaricious bunch of people then competitors wouldn't be tempted to copyright photos. At the end of the day lots of people i know go on MS photo editor, enlarge the photo to 400 pixels and then spend an hour or so cutting the water mark out. Either that or pay £15 for a piece of paper, which in effect is what it is. With these all singing, all dancing fancy cameras it doesn't seem to be the photographers talent that your paying for these days, it appears to be the expensive cameras equipment. That said I paid a rather ridiculous £10 for a photo last weekend but that is the exception and not the rule. I don't like to be ripped off for anything and I don't know how they can justify charging £10-£15 for a phot which costs pence to produce.:mad: Note to event photographers - Charge a fiver a photo and see how many more you will sell.:)
 
I've bought two jpeg images off of a photographer who is also my friend on facebook and she hasn't said anything despite one of the images being my display picture.

Although saying that, one of the other local BSJA photographers has a wall of shame on his website.

Another photographer refuses to sell jpegs as "it would be like giving away negatives" (I'm not asking for the RAW file!!)
 
PucciNPoni said:
I wonder if there's a statute of limitations on these images? What if.....

...you've bought prints from a photographer years ago (say, 5) and you'd then like to have an electronic image of it. But you can't remember who you bought it from - who the photographer was...or maybe even WHERE exactly it was taken. You just like the image and want to scan it.

Or what if it's more like 10 years ago....

20?


Surely there has to be a limit....
Click to expand...

I think that the statute of limitations sets a limit of 6 years, but that is 6 years from the date of the infringement not the date the copyright starts.

Anyway, there is never any real cause for concern because the photographer has to ask you to stop infringing his copyright and give you a reasonable period in which to do so before he can take you to court. The type of copyright infringement we are discussing is a civil matter, not criminal, so you are not technically committing a crime, just abusing the copyright owner's civil rights. So, the rozzers aren't going to come after you or anything!

ETS: Just thought I should point out that when I said "just abusing the copyright owner's civil rights" above, I genuinely wasn't dismissing those rights or suggesting that they are not important - just bad wording!
 
Last edited:
applecart14 said:
I don't like to be ripped off for anything and I don't know how they can justify charging £10-£15 for a phot which costs pence to produce.:mad: Note to event photographers - Charge a fiver a photo and see how many more you will sell.:)
Click to expand...

Now see I am currently investigating the costs. It isn't pennies per photo as...

£5k for decent (but not top notch) camera and lens (and you 'should' have two incase one fails and they only last a few years!)
£1k tripod/memory cards/flash/batteries (£100+ each!) and other essential camera equipment
£1k for decent printer and supplies
£several thousands!! trailer and portable computers/printer etc plus generator to power all above so you can buy on day

So all the above is before you even consider insurance, venue charges (some venues charge a photographer to have rights to the event), wages for you and other photographers/staff you will almost certainly employ, diesel costs etc etc etc. There are definitely significant overheads which mean unless you write off the cost of the equipment (which you cant!) a photo doesn't cost pence! (well it may be pence but far many then you were thinking ;) )

The key is balancing those costs and the sale charges so that a reasonable income can be made which will be spent reinvesting in further equipment etc The above is why so few equestrian photographers make much money out of it unless they are exceptionally good and those are rare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top