Printing from a photo cd - is it illegal?

Richie-from-the-Boro

Hello lucylucky, the one now reproduced below.

________________________
The Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988 gives the client the right not to have photographs taken for private or domestic purposes issued to the public, exhibited or broadcast without their permission. Therefore, although the photographer owns the copyright in this situation, the client can control how they are used. It obviously makes sense for photographer and client to agree from the outset how the images are to be used to avoid difficulties later on.
__________________________

Richie-from-the-Boro

- and lucylucky, I didn't leave this bit in by accident - It obviously makes sense for photographer and client to agree from the outset how the images are to be used to avoid difficulties later on

lucylucky

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Hello lucylucky, the one now reproduced below.

________________________
The Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988 gives the client the right not to have photographs taken for private or domestic purposes issued to the public, exhibited or broadcast without their permission. Therefore, although the photographer owns the copyright in this situation, the client can control how they are used. It obviously makes sense for photographer and client to agree from the outset how the images are to be used to avoid difficulties later on.
__________________________

I still don't see a question, just statements.

Are you asking if people agree with the above or should adhere to the above or what?

Freddie_Snowbits

Aiadi wrote: »

No but if I paid you to take them then they are mine. Do you get it MINE, MINE and MINE.

I refer to a previous answer

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Correctamundo!

And I have the right to tell you to go and find someone else

Now if I paid you as the model, see below!

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Hello lucylucky, the one now reproduced below.

________________________
The Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988 gives the client the right not to have photographs taken for private or domestic purposes issued to the public, exhibited or broadcast without their permission. Therefore, although the photographer owns the copyright in this situation, the client can control how they are used. It obviously makes sense for photographer and client to agree from the outset how the images are to be used to avoid difficulties later on.
__________________________

The above is correct, as long as the client paid the photographer. If the person enters a private place, say a football stadium, then the use of the image becomes a diferent matter, that between the rights holder and the photographer. The paying public in this situation have no rights to how their image is used.

As for paid models etc.

But this is where we move into a diferent type of contract. If the image is used commercially, then the correct Model Release, copyrights and property Releases must be in place. Normally a photography would pay models and others to use their facilities. A lot of areas do so, including Shopping Malls and even Trafalgar Square in London. The National Trust also trawl libraries to effect payment for images of their properties.

Back to the original question.

As for the original question, can I print from the CD. Answer yes. But then again, any photograher who wished to protect their interests, would place watermarks on their work.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

I refer to a previous answer


Now if I paid you as the model, see below!


The above is correct, as long as the client paid the photographer. If the person enters a private place, say a football stadium, then the use of the image becomes a diferent matter, that between the rights holder and the photographer. The paying public in this situation have no rights to how their image is used.

As for paid models etc.

But this is where we move into a diferent type of contract. If the image is used commercially, then the correct Model Release, copyrights and property Releases must be in place. Normally a photography would pay models and others to use their facilities. A lot of areas do so, including Shopping Malls and even Trafalgar Square in London. The National Trust also trawl libraries to effect payment for images of their properties.

Back to the original question.

As for the original question, can I print from the CD. Answer yes. But then again, any photograher who wished to protect their interests, would place watermarks on their work.

We know all about economic / paternity / attribution and integrity rights reference photography in general but are discussing wedding photography and privacy rights in the particular.

Events photography as you refer to it [ football stadia etc ] above is also irrelevant to the discussion, whilst there may be wedding receptions in the banqueting facilities of football grounds they do not constitute stadia events.

Why is it that no one in the £2000 a day wedding photography league wants to stay on subject ? Why are there constant tangential smoke screens leading / dragging the thread away from the subject ?

Does no one want to discuss the moral rights as they apply to wedding photography. Freddie_Snowbits we are not talking models, event / stadia etc just your average UK wedding photography.

There are moral rights within the copyright acts, a wedding photograph is taken for private or domestic purpose and the person paying / commissioning the photographer [ the client ] can control how any photographs are used.

Do you think that its ok to take my £2k and then fob me off with #25 - images are sufficently low-res that anything more than a postcard print will be largely unusable- and they're usually marked as well.

Your comment on watermarking is another bottle of snake oil wasted. There is an alternative called Invisible Watermarking, [ checksumming ] this will provide image authentication checks for the photographer without compromising the integrity of the original recorded digital image for the client. The use of Visible watermarking has no purpose other than as a spoiler to ensure the image can not be used for reproduction by anyone other than the original photographer. The use of giving out low res CD / DVD's has no purpose other than as a spoiler to ensure the image can not be used for reproduction by the very person who paid you £2000 for the image. Checksumming though would not render the image useless, so instead you make sure it is useless by watermarking it .. .. disgusting practice !

Lirin

A wedding photographer falls under the same rules as most other general photographic classes.

1, You're paying for the image, not the rights.
2, The photographer retains copyright.
3, The wedding couple don't own the right to reprint, irrespective of how much they pay, unless they purchase the rights.
4, Terms and conditions should be read and given at point of purchase- they are with myself.
6, As it's a public place, with no reasonable expectation of privacy, privacy laws do not apply.
7, Model release forms (while not actually a legal requirement in UK) do not need to be signed due to #6 point.
8, The customer can ask for images not to be displayed on shopfronts, websites, adverts etc.
9, Checksumming, watermarking etc is legal, and should be displayed in T&C's.
10, The photographer can't use the images for any purpose which may bring the reputation of the wedding party (and guests) into disrepute.

That should be clear enough. It is no different to buying a CD- you may play it as many times as you like (just as you may view your CD/images). You may not copy the CD (again, same with images), and you don't own the rights to the song just because you bought the CD (again, same applies in photographic terms.)

Really, the same as any contract, T&C's should be read, and any good photographer will provide them. It is NOT a disgusting practise, it is protecting within the legal limits of the law, the rights afforded to us.

rrf494g

As long as the words shown in post #107 above are shown to potential customers at the first meeting (By the photographer) - I (for one) don't have a problem with the contractual relationship. Here's my question. What percentage of the time does this happen?

Lirin

true- it should be given to customers on the first meeting. On several forums I've been on where people are looking a photographer, I always advise them to ask for T&C's.
I don't know how often it happens, usually in the too-good-to-be -true prices from what I've seen. At the end of the day, every good photographer wants to see a customer leaving happy, as bad feedback means loss of business. Therefore, it's in our best interests to provide clear T&C's as well as good photographs.
There are rogues, but there are in any profession- just going through my house I've seen cowboy jobs that I've had to finish off properly!

At the end of it, every photographer should want to see customers happy, and any photographer that cares about the reputation of his/her business will make T&C's clear to avoid later confusion.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Lirin, your personal business service standards are already clearly laid out by you in #25 on the 31-08-2010, 10:30 AM, where you assert :

- when I give out CD's I ensure the images are sufficently low-res that anything more than a postcard print will be largely unusable- and they're usually marked as well.
- I've spent my time taking them, the least I ask is that I get paid the few pounds rather than a printing shop.
- for family or friends, though, I usually just let them do what they want.

And yet in #109 you proclaim - every photographer should want to see customers happy, and any photographer that cares about the reputation of his/her business will make T&C's clear to avoid later confusion.

Tell me how can the left side of your mouth say I'll make sure the CD is useless, and the right side of your mouth say you want to make customers happy. That seems a wholly contradictory statement to me.

Sput2001

Tell me how can the left side of your mouth say I'll make sure the CD is useless, and the right side of your mouth say you want to make customers happy. That seems a wholly contradictory statement to me.

He isn't saying that the CD will be useless, just that the images on it will be suitable for viewing (on a PC etc.) only, NOT for making printed hard copies.

If the customer has a basic knowledge of photographic copyright, or has had this explained to them, there's no reason why they shouldn't be happy. I don't see the contradiction.