Printing from a photo cd - is it illegal?

spikedouglas

Unless you have an agreement to the contrary in writing, the photographer owns the copyright to the images. End of.

However, you may have other rights to re-use the images, but unless they are stated in writing they won't be worth much if someone decided to get nasty.

And the law says those agreements have to be in writing because many copyright holders got ripped off by verbal agreements in the past.

I'm not saying that I agree with it, although as someone who has had to enforce my copyrights in past I tend to; but that is what the law says now. Changed about 10 years ago.

rrf494g

The other side of which is . . .

The previous post is, I'm sure, correct legally. The other way of putting this same point, is that the law currently enables/encourages those photograhers who are unscrupulous to avoid being open and honest. I would be more comfortable with this legal poition, if there was a duty of care on the photographer to make clear up front, ownership of the images. I understand the photograher has to get "clearance" statements from a photograhic model if the ownership of the photos is to stay with the photographer. Does this not apply to the wedding guests? Perhaps photographers are a bit choosey about which laws are quoted? Don't know? But I've never been asked to agree to my image being used by a photographer at a wedding - or anywhere else.

regards

spikedouglas

...as he previous poster noted, you sometimes have to get what we call "model releases".

In most cases this is straightforward, take a picture of a specific individual, get a model release signed so they can't come back to you for whatever.

However there are exceptions, taking pictures in a public area is fair game, and taking pictures from a public area into a private area are "fair game" and you would have no inherent right to privacy, although your lawyer could have fun if the image was used for commercial gain or libellous. That assumes that you were the main subject of the image. If you're part of a crowd then no such right wold really exist.

At a wedding, if you didn't want your picture to be taken, then I guess the court would say don't go. Photos are an expected part of a wedding and the guest has little control over their use.

As far as photographers being sneaky over rights goes, I'm sure that's the case - but when you're dealing with commercial clients as opposed to consumers then you assume that they have a grasp of the issues of copyright. It is, at the end of the day, their business as well.

Lirin

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.

I retain permissions to use on my website in every occasion.

Freddie_Snowbits

Is it legal, that depends. I suppose those who put their hi res images on a CD without a watermark are asking for trouble! As a commercial photographer, copyright remains with the photographer, unless this is signed away. When I give clients proofs, I ensure they are watermarked and lo res images. I would do the same with the CD in this field.

But if the photograper of old never let the negatives leave their premises, then one suppose that they would do the same today. If they did not and you have the Hi Res images, then the photographer will learn by their mistakes

Lirin

The problem with it being it's extremely hard to prove, especially as to where they were printed.... But agree- you learn from mistakes. I certainly have in the past!

It isn't legal, no. But as said, it's hard proving that no written or verbal consent was given, and that's where it turns into a minefield....

david39

Surely the point is that if this photographer is a professional, then he would want to be the person who produced the prints and sold them afterwards - that's his business and how he earns a living.

He has every right to expect that to happen and it would have been the case before the digital age - the photographer would hold on to the negatives and the only way you could get an original print would be to buy it from him.

If the images are unprintable from the CD because either they are watermarked or of insufficient resolution to be of value, then the photographer is on top of his job - if he hasn't safeguarded himself that way, then he is not protecting himself or his business.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Paying a couple of grand for my granddaughters wedding snaps and then being told I can not see / print / send or do as I want after paying is a mis-use of the '88 Act, in this case being used to impose unreasonable terms. Don't fall for it, it's not law it's just an agreement. Change the agreement.

The solution to this problem is simple :

99% of the time the taking / editing and printing of digital photo's can be done by any individual without the need for a pro

Big events needing a pro, draw up a contract [ bog standard pdf ] simply stating that

- you agree to the Copyright and Design Act 1988, and that you contract in addition for a ' Digital Package '
- Digital Packages shall be given permission to print the images for their own use
- the digital licence includes compatible Electronic publication [ CD / DVD-ROM ]
- the digital licence includes Internet Publication Rights to send pics to family in wherever
- all the above is in perpetuity

Get the appropriate signatures / dates / etc well in advance of the shoot. If they won't agree don't use them, find a~n~other snapper who will agree. The fact of the matter is the only thing you are asking, and paying for, is right to be able to print your own photo's on your puter / facebook / ASDA etc.

Nothing in the above will reduce the photographers rights, you are only asking for your own right to use what you paid for.

Lirin

^ You're not paying for the right to use any images though.

You're paying simply for labour (shooting and editing) and one set of images. The right to reproduce them isn't included.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Lirin wrote: »

^ You're not paying for the right to use any images though.

You're paying simply for labour (shooting and editing) and one set of images. The right to reproduce them isn't included.

#29 in the thread, - who / which # are you replying to ?