to those who copy copyright images..

[Twizzel]

I can see what you're saying... a low res digital image might be a good idea for photographers to offer but then again I think they would have to trial it and see whether people actually just buy the low res image and not bother with prints, in which case I think they would make a significant loss offering the low res prints.

I am a photographer but also compete so understand how frustrating it can be from the competitor point of view. I have been at countless shows in the last year where a. there hasn't even been a photographer b. the photographer hasn't turned up c. the photographer takes awful images and still charges £10 an image. At £10 I would expect a high quality professional image which is what I aim to produce when working at shows.

A lot of the people I have found to be copying photos/lifting watermarks and putting on the likes of facebook are kids, teenagers, young adults... if they were made to pay for them it would most likely be the parents who foot the bill as payment would probably be online through the website, and would parents be prepared to pay for an image that their child would then post on facebook and is not of good enough quality to print? That's just a thought I had whilst making lunch. I suppose you'd have to do a lot of market research and trial it at a few shows to see whether it reduces the amount of copyrighted images floating around facebook, on adverts etc.

 

[George Michie]

It really is quite simple to me. If I pay to buy something I actually want value. I do not get value from just buying a print. What I choose to do with it afterwards is irrelevant. In the situation you mentioned I really couldn't care less whether they were pro or anti hunt yada yada or which side I chose to use it for. I am more likely to give credit to a photographer who I believe is giving me value for money (as in selling the entire copyright) then someone fleecing me which is how I honestly feel when I see the prices that are charged for some prints.

Plus, the charge already put on photos (£10+ for a single print) is already too much for a piece of paper with colour on it. To charge even more than that just so we can put the image anywhere we want shows what gall some photographers have and why they need to get with the times.

My T&C's

All the images on this website are copyright George Michie.

Commercial publications use them on pain of having body parts removed with rusty pliers. I'll also invoice you at a rate designed to pay off my mortgage. If you ask however I might surprise you and let you use them for a credit, it's unlikely but you never know. I do guarantee however that the day you give me free display advertising is the same day I give you free images.

Customers however, you're fine. If you've bought an image you're free to do what you want with it, except for handing it to magazines and papers etc for commercial publication. However, if you're using it for advertising a bike, car or horse then feel free to use it. If you're not sure that you're allowed to do something give me a phone and we'll sort something out. If you've bought it though the chances are I'll pretty much let you do anything you want with it.

I realise that not everyone wants to see themselves on a website. If you see your picture anywhere here and would prefer that I remove it please email me and I'll get onto it.

That doesn't give away copyright but is effectively a license for anything personal. That still doesn't stop some people phoning to ask for a digital copy without a watermark to sell their horse, despite not buying a print.

I've done everything else suggested on here regarding trying to satisfy customers' requirements but you still get some who can pay but won't pay. I've resigned myself to that fact now and am just about to nip into Tesco to help myself to some free food (well it's not free but I'm not going to pay) as I'll leave the bag in my car window as they'll appreciate the advertising

 

[SpottedCat]

See your Ts&Cs are all I want from a photographer. Just to be able to display the print I've bought in more than one place. If photographers don't allow this, I often don't bother buying a print and just shove a link to the right page on their website on FB instead - which achieves much the same aim for me, but gets them no revenue.

 

[kerilli]

a question for the photographers then... what about reproducing old images? most of the images i had in my siggy (removed because a button-pusher said it was too big, and i haven't had time to try to shrink it) were (very) old pics taken by professional event photographers, pictures which I paid for a large print of two of, in every case. i've never 'stolen' an image in my life afaik. but, should i contact them to ask them for permission to use them on here, and in my fb photo folder? i don't use the pics in any advertising.

 

[Jadeebabyboo]

Can i just say, I am very pleased with the service Spidge offers, with the facebook lower resolution images. I have brought some in the past and they have done a brilliant job for what they are intented for... showing friends and family on facebook what my lovely horses have done. I showjump for a living and have 4/5 horses competing every or ever other weekend. Now, luckily for my bank balance not every venue has a professional photographer, but I really do love pictures, and will try and buy when I can afford it. I always know from now on if I go down to Royal Leisure or Felbridge and similar venues near there I will get the chance to buy pictures of them from Spidge that I know I can share on facebook. I am completely happy with the company watermark name on the bottom, as all publicity is good, I just wish more photographers did this, or at least promoted it.
I can also guarantee that I will be buying photos at Hickstead if the offer still stands, as I was extremely excited to heard that you (Spidge) were doing the photography there this year, after 5 years of disapointing pictures from there.

Also, something I was very impressed with, which is a good idea for other photographers, I recently went to Addington for the pro/am championship, and imagepointevents had a very very good deal for me to have all my photos taken from that show of both my horses, and then for an extra £10 also all my pictures of one of my horses from the premier show last november. On the CD it is written that the pictures are still under their rights but im allowed it for personal use. I am highly impressed with this and would want to do it again in future, as I got 90 photos in all, and they take brilliant photos, so very very few are not worthy of being proud of.

What I would really like to see is more photographers promoting selling the jpeg. facebook, our bedroom/living room walls and forums are the reason we have these photos. When your proud of your horse, and the photographer gets a cracking picture, you wana show it off!!!

 

[TGM]

a low res digital image might be a good idea for photographers to offer but then again I think they would have to trial it and see whether people actually just buy the low res image and not bother with prints, in which case I think they would make a significant loss offering the low res prints.

Speaking from my own personal point of view, I buy low res .jpgs in cases where I wouldn't have bought a print, even if that was the only option available. For me to buy a print it would have to be amazing - an important competition where a good result was gained, good lighting AND capturing just the right moment. That is the sort of image that is worth paying to have a print of and displaying.

In the past I have seen photos that are nice enough, but not got the 'wow' factor (which is not usually the fault of the photographer) and when low res .jpgs have not been available then I have bought nothing at all. But now local photographers are offering .jpgs at reasonable prices I will buy them. As an example, last year my daughter won her class at the RC Area Qualifier - there was a photographer there but he didn't at the time offer cheap .jpgs and the photos weren't amazing as it was winter and horrible weather, so I bought nothing from him. This year my daughter won her class again at the same event, but this year the photographer has introduced cheap low res .jpgs, so I purchased two from him.

 

[JenniferS]

We are also competing against the masses who turn up to shows with their bog standard digital camera, so need to up our game and produce a photograph that is better than they can produce with the digicam.

Why do you need to compete? I have a decent SLR that I'll take along to some shows to practise yet the dirty looks I receive are ridiculous. I know that photographers have most likely paid a fee to take photos at the particular event, but I wouldn't dare to sell my photos. They're normally just of my friends competing anyway. I know of some people who have even been told to stop taking pictures by the photographers.

I've not tarring all photographers with the same brush, but I'm curious to know why you need to compete?

 

[burtie]

On the note of low res images, our local show photographer has just started offering these and I've bought 3 FB ones straight off and will probably buy some from each show. I also printed it off (only small as low res) and showed it too my mum, she loves it so much I am now considering going back and actually buying the proper image which I would never have otherwise done!

 

[photo_jo]

a question for the photographers then... what about reproducing old images? most of the images i had in my siggy (removed because a button-pusher said it was too big, and i haven't had time to try to shrink it) were (very) old pics taken by professional event photographers, pictures which I paid for a large print of two of, in every case. i've never 'stolen' an image in my life afaik. but, should i contact them to ask them for permission to use them on here, and in my fb photo folder? i don't use the pics in any advertising.

Your fine using mine It doesn't worry me at all if people use my pics on siggys,facebook etc etc. I don't mind them being used to sell a horse (nice to be asked and I usually am) and will always send a jpg to the relevant magazine to go with an ad. But if they were being used as above it would be as long as the person originally bought the pic-if not I would expect them to pay the price of a print. For commercial use-as in to advertise a stallion or a product then I would expect to be paid more-after all we all have to make a living

 

[TGM]

Why do you need to compete? I have a decent SLR that I'll take along to some shows to practise yet the dirty looks I receive are ridiculous. I know that photographers have most likely paid a fee to take photos at the particular event, but I wouldn't dare to sell my photos. They're normally just of my friends competing anyway. I know of some people who have even been told to stop taking pictures by the photographers.

I've not tarring all photographers with the same brush, but I'm curious to know why you need to compete?

I think she means that they need to produce better photos than the amateurs so they can get more business. For example, I have a decent digital SLR which I take to events and take a lot of my own photos, but I will buy from pros as well. As said above, the really expensive cameras the pros have cope well with dull conditions and indoor arenas - so this is an area where the pros can 'outdo' the amateur because of the standard of equipment they have. My camera is not really good enough indoors, so I often buy from the pros at those events. If the pros results were not better than mine indoors, then I would stick with my own efforts!

 

[Twizzel]

Why do you need to compete? I have a decent SLR that I'll take along to some shows to practise yet the dirty looks I receive are ridiculous. I know that photographers have most likely paid a fee to take photos at the particular event, but I wouldn't dare to sell my photos. They're normally just of my friends competing anyway. I know of some people who have even been told to stop taking pictures by the photographers.

I've not tarring all photographers with the same brush, but I'm curious to know why you need to compete?

TGM explains it well Compete is probably the wrong word to use, but a pro tog needs to be able to produce something special that people who go along with their normal cameras can't- be it better quality, a photo taken hidden in the depths of an xc course where nobody has walked down to, close ups taken in the show ring etc. If all we produce is similar or replicas of what people are taking outside of the ring, nobody would buy the images.

 

[Broodle]

And when I buy a CD I don't buy the copyright, no, but I *am* allowed to put it on my CD player, make a copy for personal use in my lorry, put it on my computer, iPod and iPhone.

*whispers* Actually the above copying for personal use only is copright infringement thanks to an unfortunate combination of outdated UK copyright laws and a silly EU directive, sorry. I expect that the law will be tidied up at some point, but for now what you are doing is, I'm afraid, not allowed.

 

[SpottedCat]

*whispers* Actually the above copying for personal use only is copright infringement thanks to an unfortunate combination of outdated UK copyright laws and a silly EU directive, sorry. I expect that the law will be tidied up at some point, but for now what you are doing is, I'm afraid, not allowed.

Sorry, didn't write that very clearly at all - I never buy CDs anymore, but still refer to albums as CDs, my bad! What I was trying (and failing!) to say, was that if I buy an album on iTunes, I can legally copy it for personal use, to a CD (up to 7 times I think?) and to my iPod, iPhone etc.

The actual Ts&Cs from iTunes are:

Many of the songs you purchase from the iTunes Store are protected by Digital Rights Management (DRM). These protected purchases can be:

• Played on up to five computers
• Synced with your iPod
• Synced with or streamed to your Apple TV
• Burned to audio CDs or DVDs (as part of a playlist) up to seven times

 

[Broodle]

Sorry, didn't write that very clearly at all - I never buy CDs anymore, but still refer to albums as CDs, my bad! What I was trying (and failing!) to say, was that if I buy an album on iTunes, I can legally copy it for personal use, to a CD (up to 7 times I think?) and to my iPod, iPhone etc.

The actual Ts&Cs from iTunes are:

Many of the songs you purchase from the iTunes Store are protected by Digital Rights Management (DRM). These protected purchases can be:

• Played on up to five computers
• Synced with your iPod
• Synced with or streamed to your Apple TV
• Burned to audio CDs or DVDs (as part of a playlist) up to seven times

Ah ha, I see! Sorry for being anal enough to query it!

 

[spidge]

Can i just say, I am very pleased with the service Spidge offers, with the facebook lower resolution images. I have brought some in the past and they have done a brilliant job for what they are intented for... showing friends and family on facebook what my lovely horses have done. I showjump for a living and have 4/5 horses competing every or ever other weekend. Now, luckily for my bank balance not every venue has a professional photographer, but I really do love pictures, and will try and buy when I can afford it. I always know from now on if I go down to Royal Leisure or Felbridge and similar venues near there I will get the chance to buy pictures of them from Spidge that I know I can share on facebook. I am completely happy with the company watermark name on the bottom, as all publicity is good, I just wish more photographers did this, or at least promoted it.
I can also guarantee that I will be buying photos at Hickstead if the offer still stands, as I was extremely excited to heard that you (Spidge) were doing the photography there this year, after 5 years of disapointing pictures from there.

I thank you for your kind words and your business. 2011 will certainly be the most exciting year for us taking on several high profile venues in addition to all our regular work. Honestly, we do listen to what competitors want in terms of our products, prices etc but at the end of the day we are a business so have to make commercially minded decisions that ensure our long term survival. It is good to hear positive feedback on this thread as it is all to easy to focus on the negative.

 

[Kat]

Sorry, didn't write that very clearly at all - I never buy CDs anymore, but still refer to albums as CDs, my bad! What I was trying (and failing!) to say, was that if I buy an album on iTunes, I can legally copy it for personal use, to a CD (up to 7 times I think?) and to my iPod, iPhone etc.

The actual Ts&Cs from iTunes are:

Many of the songs you purchase from the iTunes Store are protected by Digital Rights Management (DRM). These protected purchases can be:

• Played on up to five computers
• Synced with your iPod
• Synced with or streamed to your Apple TV
• Burned to audio CDs or DVDs (as part of a playlist) up to seven times

But that is only because itunes as a business have put that in their terms and conditions, effectively allowing you to reproduce the "work" for personal use only. Most of the photographers on here have said that they are happy with an image that has been paid for to be used in that way. They are not happy for an image to be lifted from their site, in the same way the music industry get pretty narked with music file sharing sites like limewire and so on. Neither are photographers happy for their images to be reproduced commercially, so as a stud you can't use a picture bought at a show to advertise your stallion without permission, that is just the same as the itunes T&Cs not allowing you to copy the music you have bought to play in a nightclub.

 

[Kat]

a question for the photographers then... what about reproducing old images? most of the images i had in my siggy (removed because a button-pusher said it was too big, and i haven't had time to try to shrink it) were (very) old pics taken by professional event photographers, pictures which I paid for a large print of two of, in every case. i've never 'stolen' an image in my life afaik. but, should i contact them to ask them for permission to use them on here, and in my fb photo folder? i don't use the pics in any advertising.

Technically unless the photographer has been dead 70 years you would still be breaching copyright.

Whether the photographer would no or care that you are using a photo he took 20 years ago is another matter.

If you wanted to be squeeky clean you would contact the photographer and obtain permission as it is highly unlikely that a photographer before the digital days would have included any T&Cs allowing you to make digital copies, or any copies at all, because back then he would have kept the negative and without that you wouldn't have been able to get a copy.

In practice you may be unable to identify and trace the photographer, in which case it is an orphan work and can't be used. But to be honest in your circumstances after trying to contact the photographer I'd use it for personal use only, if the copyright owner spots it they have to ask you to cease and desist before they can take any action, and at that point you apologise profusely and remove the image. The liklihood of them suing is miniscule.

 

[Cuppatea]

sorry, ive not read through all the posts so sorry if this has already been covered....but if you were to alter the original picture - photoshop etc- is the photo still under copyright laws when it is no longer the original photo?

 

[Santa_Claus]

yes the photo would still be subject to copyright as you are effectively reproducing it

 

[scally]

Surely if stealing pictures from a website is the main issue, surely it is about time photographers got PC smart, why dont you have a website that people have to PAY to enter e.g. like a forum you have to pay to use, so said person wants to view pictures they have to pay a £1 (or whatever they wish) for the password to view pictures of one event. Then that £1 is refunded to them when the purchase a picture, jpeg or whatever. Each event has different passwords, you have 24 hours or x amount of time to view on line and from that IP address only, if horse forums can do it and successfully then surely photographs can to protect their photos.

As a secondary matter, I have a pictures bought a 16 x 20 some years ago and it is now fading and would like to get it renewed, now I can do it on equipment I have, the show was Pyecombe in the Open Derby August 2000 (one of the last events on my old fellow), I have no idea who the photographers were (although summers rings a bell but it could be from the RC days), if they are still trading how to get in touch with them there is no sticker or anything on the original I purchased. This new picture will be purely for my viewing no intention of putting it on the internet, but if reproducing is wrong then surely photographers need to take into account what may happen with customers in years to come.

 

[Cuppatea]

some websites have a 'lock' on their photos so that you cant right click on the pics to save them. Why cant all websites just do this?

 

[Santa_Claus]

some websites have a 'lock' on their photos so that you cant right click on the pics to save them. Why cant all websites just do this?

because it doesn't work anyone with a small about of computer know how can get round the 'no right click' within about 5 secs. There is as yet no way to stop images that are online from being saved to someone else's computer. Whether that be by just screen printing (which can also be blocked), no right click, overlaying images (so if you roll over image it changes to something else) etc etc etc. All of them can be got round within a few mins and then in seconds every subsequent time. On here last year some point we actually tried very hard to try and develop a full proof way to stop an image being copied, I think the best effort from someone (and it was a very valiant clever effort) took about 10 mins to crack by a few determined people with average computer knowledge! I.e. nothing not learned through experience or school!

 

[caterpillar]

some websites have a 'lock' on their photos so that you cant right click on the pics to save them. Why cant all websites just do this?

People just print screen them instead and then put them on facebook, some HHO'ers being the worst

 

[xspiralx]

Surely if stealing pictures from a website is the main issue, surely it is about time photographers got PC smart, why dont you have a website that people have to PAY to enter e.g. like a forum you have to pay to use, so said person wants to view pictures they have to pay a £1 (or whatever they wish) for the password to view pictures of one event. Then that £1 is refunded to them when the purchase a picture, jpeg or whatever. Each event has different passwords, you have 24 hours or x amount of time to view on line and from that IP address only, if horse forums can do it and successfully then surely photographs can to protect their photos.

To be honest if I got charged to look at a website [on which there is no guarantee that there would be any good photos that I would wish to purchase], I just wouldn't bother.

 

[qwertyuiop]

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 agree when the photograph is of you. In some cultures, taking a person's photograph is considered to be stealing their souls!

I got a new passport photograph last week and the new passports scan and electronically print your photo. I took the photo myself using my webcam, so maybe I should now sue the Passport Office for infringing my copyright!

The intellectual property laws in this country are way overdue for an overhaul as they were written before the electronic age. If you think copyright is a mess, the patent laws are even worse! They have driven most companies to avoid taking patents out as they require full disclosure of the technical info and if granted, the patent holder has to police infringements themselves.

 

[MrFigjam]

Not been on here in a while and just noticed this thread.
Not read the whole thing so forgive me if I've repeated anything.

Just a couple of points:

1. If anyone buys a print from me, just email me and I'll send you a small digital copy for use on the web for free. If you have spent money on my pictures that's good enough for me and I don't want crappy scans or cameraphone pictures of my shots showing anywhere.

2. Photographers don't make as much as you think. I've gone to events where I wouldn't have even covered my petrol costs to get there never mind the many hours shooting and processing afterwards.

3. In photographic terms, children have no more legal rights than adults. It is common courtesy to ask permission and there is a stigma attached with taking photos of minors, but there is no difference legally.

4. The people who want a change in copyright law and say that that it is out of date are usually the ones that want the free images and can't be bothered paying for them.

5. Photographs with copyright on them are NOT free advertising! If I wanted advertising then I'd pay for it and people stealing those images does not pay the bills or put shoes on Hopalong's feet!
If you copied cd's and handed them out to your friends, I don't think the artist would be fobbed off with "but it's free advertising" so why is it any different with a picture.

6. If you like it enough to put it on facebook, no matter how bad, then you like it enough to pay for it. If you don't think it's good enough to buy then it's not good enough to steal.

7. I can't be bothered with this whole argument on stealing images any more and there's no way you are going to stop the tight people from stealing images so if people ask me nicely I generally give away a small image (about 400pix) with "courtesy of......." at the bottom on the condition they don't cut it off.

If you can't beat them....join them!

 

[Noodlejaffa]

Not been on here in a while and just noticed this thread.
Not read the whole thing so forgive me if I've repeated anything.

Just a couple of points:

1. If anyone buys a print from me, just email me and I'll send you a small digital copy for use on the web for free. If you have spent money on my pictures that's good enough for me and I don't want crappy scans or cameraphone pictures of my shots showing anywhere.

2. Photographers don't make as much as you think. I've gone to events where I wouldn't have even covered my petrol costs to get there never mind the many hours shooting and processing afterwards.

3. In photographic terms, children have no more legal rights than adults. It is common courtesy to ask permission and there is a stigma attached with taking photos of minors, but there is no difference legally.

4. The people who want a change in copyright law and say that that it is out of date are usually the ones that want the free images and can't be bothered paying for them.

5. Photographs with copyright on them are NOT free advertising! If I wanted advertising then I'd pay for it and people stealing those images does not pay the bills or put shoes on Hopalong's feet!
If you copied cd's and handed them out to your friends, I don't think the artist would be fobbed off with "but it's free advertising" so why is it any different with a picture.

6. If you like it enough to put it on facebook, no matter how bad, then you like it enough to pay for it. If you don't think it's good enough to buy then it's not good enough to steal.

7. I can't be bothered with this whole argument on stealing images any more and there's no way you are going to stop the tight people from stealing images so if people ask me nicely I generally give away a small image (about 400pix) with "courtesy of......." at the bottom on the condition they don't cut it off.

If you can't beat them....join them!

Hear, hear!! Well said Mr FJ. Think we could all tell 'the offenders' until we're blue in the face but you've put this very succinctly!

 

[qwertyuiop]

4. The people who want a change in copyright law and say that that it is out of date are usually the ones that want the free images and can't be bothered paying for them.

My problem with the copyright laws is that a photographer can take my photo at an event without my permission, sell it to a magazine without my permission and make a profit from my image. I am not advocating photographers getting ripped off, but neither should they make a profit from my image, i.e. me, without me getting a say in the matter and a cut of the money! This would have the added benefit of putting the paparazzi out of business overnight!

 

[photo_jo]

My problem with the copyright laws is that a photographer can take my photo at an event without my permission, sell it to a magazine without my permission and make a profit from my image. I am not advocating photographers getting ripped off, but neither should they make a profit from my image, i.e. me, without me getting a say in the matter and a cut of the money! This would have the added benefit of putting the paparazzi out of business overnight!

As all the images I sell are to the magazines that the majority of equestrian people want to be it would be very handy for me to know your real name and then I'll know not to send one of you in! mind you would have to win something at an event I was at-just pm me than I can have a break when you are competing!

 

[photo_jo]

Sorry about the partly repeated post-it wouldn't let me add to what I had written.

As all the images I sell are to the magazines that the majority of equestrian people want to be it would be very handy for me to know your real name and then I'll know not to send one of you in as having to get your permission to use it is a bit time consuming. One point to make by being at an affiliated competition BS, BE, BD PC etc etc you have agreed to their rules which include your image being used for promotion which reporting is covered under. By the way you would have to win something at an event I was at-just pm me than I can have a break when you are competing!