Printing from a photo cd - is it illegal?

Lirin

Richie-

Low-res allows for display purposes, such as a monitor or TV, without the ability to print. That's the issue which requires consent. As said, in general practise, I usually allow people to reprint their weddings, whereas I wouldn't with commercial.

You sound as if you've met a particulary nasty or deceiving photographer who hasn't made wedding costs clear?

Lirin

Richie-

Just saw newer post- I do generally allow wedding customers to reprint, this involves giving them the hi-res images. The low-res are unprintable past 4x6. Sorry for the confusion!
As I do more than wedding photography, and I know they're going to try reprint them anyway, I'd rather they use mine. It is mentioned in initial consult they'll get low-res and no copyright, I use my discretion to give them printing, but still not the copyright. I can choose not to do this, as I hold rights. I can choose to sell rights, but never have.

With commercial, I always retain copyright and printing, and the images supplied are of the resolution they require, and no more.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Lirin wrote: »

Richie-

Low-res allows for display purposes, such as a monitor or TV, without the ability to print. That's the issue which requires consent. As said, in general practise, I usually allow people to reprint their weddings, whereas I wouldn't with commercial.

You sound as if you've met a particulary nasty or deceiving photographer who hasn't made wedding costs clear?

No never had any problems whatsoever. The '88 was to protect £Trillions worldwide being sucked away from the music industry in general, and in the particular from individual songwriters. I supported it then and do now. Photographers claimed to be in the same league for obvious reasons I do not, and never did support that interpretation.

Wedding photographers are as much artists as .. - .. as synchronised swimmers are Olympic athletes.
____________________

No #'s missing and no threads edited other than #18 fitshase 13-08-2010, 12:18 PM.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Lirin,

.1. With commercial, I always retain copyright
- stop bringing this up, it was agreed and disposed of #'s ago

.2. this involves giving them the hi-res images
- not what you have said many times previous / no missing (1) edit

.3. I'd rather they use mine
- yes you stated earlier you low-res'd them so only you could print / earn

.4. It is mentioned in initial consult
- this is the point at which you should give full T&C's and a copy of the contract
- but you know if you did most would read your terms and I suspect, run a mile

ellay864

All the wedding photgraphers we contacted recently said they retain copyright but are giving us the photos on a disk for us to do what we like with for personal use. So I can print, e-mail, post on Facebook etc. What I can't do without permission is use them commercially, so if eg my dressmaker or the guy supplying our cars wants to use any of them in their own promotional material they couldn't do so without the photographer agreeing. In most cases there wouldn't be an issue and the photographer would just ask for a credit referenced in the literature somewhere. And of course he has the right to use 'our' photos on his website and his own promotional material. We're more than happy with that arrangement

Richie-from-the-Boro

ellay864 wrote: »

All the wedding photgraphers we contacted recently said they retain copyright but are giving us the photos on a disk for us to do what we like with for personal use. So I can print, e-mail, post on Facebook etc. What I can't do without permission is use them commercially, so if eg my dressmaker or the guy supplying our cars wants to use any of them in their own promotional material they couldn't do so without the photographer agreeing. In most cases there wouldn't be an issue and the photographer would just ask for a credit referenced in the literature somewhere. And of course he has the right to use 'our' photos on his website and his own promotional material. We're more than happy with that arrangement

The whole basis of this debate is whether on the 15th October 2011 you will be given usable material. The areas you outline "" print, e-mail, post on Facebook etc "" by your photographer.

It's all down to the small print, have you actually been given copies of the T&C and Contact documents already, and have you read them ? If so fine !

Oh and by the way all the best for the 15th October 2011:bdaycake:

ellay864

Thank you Richie...and yes we have. We get high res images, no watermarking that we really can use, just as long as we're not selling, or having them used commercially. We got the t&c and contract when we met him

Richie-from-the-Boro

ellay864 wrote: »

Thank you Richie...and yes we have. We get high res images, no watermarking that we really can use, just as long as we're not selling, or having them used commercially. We got the t&c and contract when we met him

Good people, I'm pleased for you, you have worked to find a good person as your photographer !, have the very best day of your lives. I'll drink [ e-drink ] to your future now :beer:

Best Wishes, Richie

Richie-from-the-Boro

To others reading this thread :

- there is no law on the subject
- there is not even an agreed cross industry informal, let alone formal industry standard
- the T&C is equivalent to a politicians moat or the wheel clamping industry
- no compression should be applied to files supplied on this medium
- a disc intended for cross platform use should be written to ISO 9660 format, as a closed single session
- did the snapper obtain written consent from me for my grandchildren displayed in his / her shop window / sold / etc - doubt it !
- watermarking an image is / should be illegal - its not an authentic image because the pixels had been changed

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 anyone other than the original photographer.

One thing is for sure you, the family will unnecessarily pay a heck of a lot more for the usual xtra prints than you would at ASDA / wherever. Don't get conned, they are expensive, its a wedding not David Beckham, but you need to do a little extra thinking to make sure the photographer who is taking your money is doing :

- what you want, and ;
- what you are paying for

Most people spend more time an effort researching a disposable TV / AV programme / set of non~stick~pans. These memories are a forever thing, make sure you really own your own wedding photo's

Lirin

Richie,

Final word on the subject. If you've received bad service or haven't read T&C's in the past, that is little to do with me as my business is conducted differently.
You have raised valid points though- the industry is unregulated, and it's frustrating to people like me who have taken the time to learn the skills and expertise needed.
Your point about low-res is a little unfair- I choose with most weddings to give the hi-res, they can be re-used. Low res are given as standard with me, giving the extra is my choice. Low-res can be used on facebook etc, I don't mind that- they're sufficently high enough quality.

Did you receive any paperwork with your grandchildren's photos? Most photographers will remove images if you think they're unfairly displayed/ used... If you don't like them being displayed, ask.

Photographers rights are protected, though. That is true. Get full T&C's before you hire a photographer, get a full idea of what you will own/ be able to use. If you have an understanding of what's involved from the start, there is no confusion.