Printing from a photo cd - is it illegal?

Lirin

Richie- My job, my profession. Did no bragging other than state the rights that apply to my line of work. There are a few other photographers on here that I've seen posting who would agree.
The original question was in relation to printing from a CD- you need permission or release to be able to do so. My original answer was to that effect, but I also mentioned that it's hard to employ that in general practise.

You have paid for the use of a service. You have not paid for the copyright- that's fairly simple to understand. There is no manipulation as the customer is aware they cannot reproduce without permission- this is usually set out clearly in the T&C's.

Apologies if you can't agree, but photographers have the right to protect their work.

DCodd- I know it can be assumed the person receiving the images owns them- fell into that a few times. It's live and learn really- all my CD's and DVD's are watermarked in low-res now, and do come with a card stating the use- I also mention it when they hire me. For the likes of a wedding, I usually will let them reprint if they like- I can't really stop it. For commercial, I have to be more stringent- if one newspaper uses a motorsport image I've taken, no other paper can reproduce without my permission. The laws apply to all photography, but largely, it's photographer's discretion.

I know of a few local guys that give the copyright to weddings and such for an extra fee.

Richie-from-the-Boro

DCodd wrote: »

Are wedding photos "Artistic photography"?

Of course its not artistic its mechanistic.#

I can agree with literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, sound recordings, broadcasts, films and typographical arrangement of published editions, rights to control the ways in which their material may be used.

Taking wedding photos is none of the above ! You should be paid properly for your service, but it is just that .. .. a service. There is no artistic difference between a snapper / dancer / waiter / entertainer etc.

Next you will be advocating a similar contract for the band that plays at the wedding, they should have a cut / extra bite at the wonka each time a snap is reproduced or sent to Aunt Mary in Canada.

The expertise / knowledge / experience / time~2~learn / and artistry of my mechanic is equally expert.

Lirin

Photography is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a radiation-sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor.

You seem to have a particular bone over this Richie- what is your job profession?

DCodd

Lirin wrote: »

DCodd- I know it can be assumed the person receiving the images owns them- fell into that a few times. It's live and learn really- all my CD's and DVD's are watermarked in low-res now, and do come with a card stating the use- I also mention it when they hire me. For the likes of a wedding, I usually will let them reprint if they like- I can't really stop it. For commercial, I have to be more stringent- if one newspaper uses a motorsport image I've taken, no other paper can reproduce without my permission. The laws apply to all photography, but largely, it's photographer's discretion.

I know of a few local guys that give the copyright to weddings and such for an extra fee.

Sensible approach and I can definately see the reasoning behind the Commercial aspect (as they would be making money from your work) and glad to see you are upfront and reasonable with private individuals. Maybe the Industry needs a code of practise to ensure all photographers are as professional as you?

Lirin

DCodd- I believe there's been several attempts to instigate something like this.

The industry does need regulation- although several photographic bodies exist- Master Photographer's Association, Royal Photographic Society, The The Society of Wedding and Portrait Photographers, etc, and a host of others, there's currently no requirements to actually use them.

There should be, as I've seen people receive rubbish that 'a friend of a friend did.' I agree it should be more stringently monitored, but there's no agreement as to how yet.

I don't think my approach is anything more than cautious, really.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Lirin wrote: »

Richie- My job, my profession. Did no bragging other than state the rights that apply to my line of work. There are a few other photographers on here that I've seen posting who would agree.
The original question was in relation to printing from a CD- you need permission or release to be able to do so. My original answer was to that effect, but I also mentioned that it's hard to employ that in general practise.

You have paid for the use of a service. You have not paid for the copyright- that's fairly simple to understand. There is no manipulation as the customer is aware they cannot reproduce without permission- this is usually set out clearly in the T&C's.

Apologies if you can't agree, but photographers have the right to protect their work.

DCodd- I know it can be assumed the person receiving the images owns them- fell into that a few times. It's live and learn really- all my CD's and DVD's are watermarked in low-res now, and do come with a card stating the use- I also mention it when they hire me. For the likes of a wedding, I usually will let them reprint if they like- I can't really stop it. For commercial, I have to be more stringent- if one newspaper uses a motorsport image I've taken, no other paper can reproduce without my permission. The laws apply to all photography, but largely, it's photographer's discretion.

I know of a few local guys that give the copyright to weddings and such for an extra fee.

Oh ! I do understand you :

you need permission or release to be able to do so

- its a condition you impose
- are these details made clear to your client from the very outset ?
- or do you slip it in [ after the event ] with the invoice

If someone rings you in Jan for an April event they should get the T&C's and a copy of the contract at that point, that way they can choose to modify the contract. I'm sure a very high % of clients when realising they are getting a gerrymandered set of images for their once in a lifetime event would think twice and ask you to amend your contact or look elsewhere for a snapper who would.

You seem to be arguing the copyright issue, newspaper / sport / industry all employ professional individuals to watch out for sharp practice. Mr & Mrs Excited - Blioggs do not.

Again there is no copyright issue in law - it's a contract term you impose, wedding Photography is not Picasso / Paul Wellar / Ernest Hemingway.

The copyright is copyright because they sign to agree to be copyright p[ed]

Lirin

Yes, as stated above, all my customers are made aware when they come in for a consultation. It avoids confusion later, and is reprinted on a card supplied with the final CD/DVD, or album.

Commercial customers are often aware anyway of copyright law- it is Mr & Mrs Bloggs who aren't. That's why I supply details upfront. It's a condition imposed by the photographer by law, unless they give up or sell the right, under current copyright laws.

It's up to the photographer whether they allow reprinting or not, and whether they choose to sell the rights to do so. As I've also said, I do generally allow wedding customers to reprint, whereas I wouldn't for commercial.

Photography is considered an art and a science, and is covered by the 88 Act in all forms. The definition of photography literally translates as 'drawing with light', which is irrespective of the subject matter.

Richie-from-the-Boro

DCodd wrote: »

Sensible approach and I can definately see the reasoning behind the Commercial aspect (as they would be making money from your work) and glad to see you are upfront and reasonable with private individuals. Maybe the Industry needs a code of practise to ensure all photographers are as professional as you?

#25 - DCodd

"" 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 understand this to mean :

- sufficently low-res = useless for most purposes
- and they're usually marked as well = watermarked = useless for even more most purposes

How can this be seen as reasonable with private individuals

DCodd

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

#25 - DCodd

"" 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 understand this to mean :

- sufficently low-res = useless for most purposes
- and they're usually marked as well = watermarked = useless for even more most purposes

How can this be seen as reasonable with private individuals

Because Lirin is upfront and explains that the copyright is theirs from the outset.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Lirin wrote: »

Yes, as stated above, all my customers are made aware when they come in for a consultation. It avoids confusion later, and is reprinted on a card supplied with the final CD/DVD, or album.

Commercial customers are often aware anyway of copyright law- it is Mr & Mrs Bloggs who aren't. That's why I supply details upfront. It's a condition imposed by the photographer by law, unless they give up or sell the right, under current copyright laws.

It's up to the photographer whether they allow reprinting or not, and whether they choose to sell the rights to do so. As I've also said, I do generally allow wedding customers to reprint, whereas I wouldn't for commercial.

No you do not allow wedding customers to reprint, what use is it to reprint photographs purposely doctored so they are useless ? That's the equivalent of the mechanic in an earlier thread, I've fixed your car m8 but I've made sure it won't:

- go over 20mph without paying me extra
- take it out of town without paying me extra
- sell it without paying me extra
- put your headlights on without paying me extra