Copyright Infringment

olivernaj

Hi,

I am a photographer who runs my own business doing baby photography at budget prices. When I do a shoot for a customer I keep all of the photos on my hard drive and show them proofs so that if they wish to purchase prints, they may do so up till 2years later.

I have no terms and conditions on my website reguarding copyright of images however, from my knowledge (and having read up) on this, every photo which i take automatically belongs to me unless i specify in writing that i have transfered ownership to someone else.

I recently had a customer who was very satisfied with her shoot and purchased several 6x4 inch prints. A friend showed me the customer's Facebook page where she had a photograph of an A1 sized canvas on her wall with one of my images on. I had no idea that this canvas had been produced and had certainly not given permission for it to be produced. (I also sell canvases of my images at very reasonable prices).

My friend contacted my customer to find out how she managed to get this canvas printed with only a 6x4inch print and no copyright to the image. She said she had it printed by a lady on a small temporary stall in a prestigious local shopping centre.

From my experience of printing my own pictures, the likes of Max Speillman, Tesco Photo etc are all very wary about printing images which may have been taken professionally. I have even been turned away from tesco photo on one occasion when trying to print my own photos because they believed that they looked 'too professional' and because i neither had business cards or a union card stating that i am a photographer, or a letter from 'the photographer' stating that i had permission to print a copy.

I am wondering what i should do about this matter because i have lost a £70-£80 sale from this customer and somebody has made money from my image.

paddyrg

Joe public has little concept of or respect for copyright. You are correct, the image rights remain with you as a rule, and it is great that many of the labs won't process professional photos. The same lady may copy an mp3 for a friend, or photocopy a page from a book, or watch a TV show clip on youtube, sing a showtune at karaoke, or do a doodle of Mickey Mouse, entirely without comprehension of copyright. You could try chasing it, but frankly for £70, just write it off as a cost of doing business.

Savvy_Sue

paddyrg wrote: »

You could try chasing it, but frankly for £70, just write it off as a cost of doing business.

and get some written t&c drawn up, clearly visible on your website and given out to potential customers!

jexygirl

Hmm - from joe public none buisness POV.
I realise that you took the pic - but as joe public, it was my kid... and I paid you for doing so and also bought copies, which, i feel i can do with those copies as i please - give them to relatives, who will again do with them as they please.
If I chose, with todays technology, to reproduce that image, that I paid for, of my child, and someone would do that at a cheaper cost than the original photographer, I probably would do it.
So - look at your price for doing it, and also at how "copyright" your work really is - I mean its not like it is a vogue cover shot - its in someones living room - and whilst I respect your trade and what you do - I also put things in perspective - what "compensation" would you really feel was acceptable for someone having posted a FB pic, with a copy of an image you took, in the background, on a canvas that costs less than yours do?
If your price for the canvass was more acceptable, and the customer bought it from you, would you then be asking for credit on the FB pic? or royalties for every viewing? Or would it be ok because they got it from you?
Sorry if this sounds harsh, and I do truly recognise the talents and skills, my wedding photographers OWNED ! - however... works also both ways - an image they took of me, on my wedding day, they reproduced to a 2ft x 4ft canvass, and was the showpiece of their stand at a wedding exhibition... ( I am no model lol, far from it, but we had an unusual wedding which lent itself to showing off ability to adapt i guess!)
I paid them over £1000 to photograph our day, got a lovely album and a disc with every pic they took, as well as prints of the ones we chose, however, the picture was exhibited of me ( I detest having my pic taken) without my prior knowledge or consent (a friend visited the fair and told me) I asked them and they confirmed it, in a positive manner, saying how many leads they had because of it... (I was questioning why they were publicising a photo of me, without asking, and we had paid them to take OUR photos of OUR wedding, not to show them to random strnagers and they had never asked - but apparently, the fact they took them mean't they were theirs, not ours, of our own wedding.) Should I have therefore had commission? sued for privacy? sued for emotional trauma as I hate being photographed and to us it was personal? We signed a contract to employ them for our wedding, yet the pic then went on to win 2 awards, for them, really good for the buisness... without my permission - I would never have said it was ok because I so hate having my pic taken, but it was plastered all over the local papers twice, and also a national magazine that they were good enough to send me a copy of...
So, if you got that one in a million perfect shot... would you consider asking if it was ok to reproduce, or assume that you own it so its ok? Assuming they owned it is what the person has done that reproduced it with someone else cheaper than getting it from you.
I would put it down to experience, re read your contracts, but accpet that in todays society - you get what you pay for. You take the pic and get paid, what they then do, you cannot control - unless ofc it ends up on the cover of vogue and you hold the original, with proof...
jex

rosepetal_2

jexygirl wrote: »

Sorry if this sounds harsh, and I do truly recognise the talents and skills, my wedding photographers OWNED ! - however... works also both ways - an image they took of me, on my wedding day, they reproduced to a 2ft x 4ft canvass, and was the showpiece of their stand at a wedding exhibition... ( I am no model lol, far from it, but we had an unusual wedding which lent itself to showing off ability to adapt i guess!)
I paid them over £1000 to photograph our day, got a lovely album and a disc with every pic they took, as well as prints of the ones we chose, however, the picture was exhibited of me ( I detest having my pic taken) without my prior knowledge or consent (a friend visited the fair and told me) I asked them and they confirmed it, in a positive manner, saying how many leads they had because of it... (I was questioning why they were publicising a photo of me, without asking, and we had paid them to take OUR photos of OUR wedding, not to show them to random strnagers and they had never asked - but apparently, the fact they took them mean't they were theirs, not ours, of our own wedding.) Should I have therefore had commission? sued for privacy? sued for emotional trauma as I hate being photographed and to us it was personal? We signed a contract to employ them for our wedding, yet the pic then went on to win 2 awards, for them, really good for the buisness... without my permission - I would never have said it was ok because I so hate having my pic taken, but it was plastered all over the local papers twice, and also a national magazine that they were good enough to send me a copy of...

jex

Actually there are laws on both sides of this, and you would have been well within your rights to take this further and sue them if you chose as them owning the copyright of a professional photograph taken does not give tham the rights to use the picture for other purposes (such as advertising) without the models prior consent. This is called Model Release.

I'm sure there are better links but a quick search brings up this page: http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html



In regards to the OP's post I have to agree with the posters who said get some T&C's up asap, so that customers are at least informed, and that you may have to mark this one up to experience, as it wouldn't be financially viable to chase it further.

However if someone was copying your work in any volume or for profit, I would take it further, and if you are able to confirm who copied the picture you may be able to have words with them, but I don't see how you could actually take it any further on a more formal basis.

marvin

For what it is worth when I do prints for anyone I make sure that the reverse of the print has my copyright details on it and a note saying reproduction without prior written permission is not allowed.

May deter some should stop any reputable lab from reproducing it but will not stop everything.

I first started with a rubber stamp back the 80's moved on to pre-printed stickers (I still have both of these somewhere can never bring myself to throw anything away) and onto printing directly onto the print in the 2000's. With direct printing it also allowed me to put on details like year and image number should I need to reproduce it again.

On websites if copyright worries you then yes you must have a copyright notice which sets out the rights of users and to really protect should watermark or place wording on the image that inserts your copyright.

However as others say it is a thing that is unlikely to ever be stopped, a friend once brought me a copy of a football programme back from a game, won't name the team, and in it was one of my pictures clearly pinched from my website and not a word beforehand about permission to reprint so it is not just joe public if it on the net just about anyone thinks they can use it.

paulwf

olivernaj wrote: »

I am wondering what i should do about this matter because i have lost a £70-£80 sale from this customer and somebody has made money from my image.

I think you need to have a think about your business model and perhaps adjust your pricing strategy. It seems your current model is to charge less for the shoot and make money on the prints. Nothing wrong with this but customers will take advantage of this, perhaps unknowingly (not everyone knows copyright law) or perhaps with the full intention of getting a better deal.

Facebook and other online photo sharing sites play a huge part in peoples lives these days and people like putting hundreds of photos online. To me the average photographers model of jealously guarding the images and customers only taking a few images home and then only in print format seems terribly out of date. I think a much more up to date business model could be constructed.

Skyhigh

Ignorance is not an excuse for violating copyright law. You've taken the photo's, the copyright belongs to you*. Regardless of whether you had a clear 'Terms and Conditions' shown - someone cannot argue (legally and successfully) that they "just didn't know".

They can say that, fine, but then they should pay you fact they've used the image.

Maybe write a polite, but firm letter stating that you've been made aware that they have infringed your copyright and you require payment in liue for the canvas.
(Since they'd have to 'licence' the right to use the image from you, even if they didn't buy the canvas directly).

Or write a letter to say that they should pay £80, but as an act of good will say (as a compromise and good will), you will give them the £80 they owe against the purchase of more images.
(Providing they buy some within the next month).
Otherwise, they'll have to just pay you the straight £80.^^

Then at least you won't look "all bad" (even though they're in the wrong, people tend to take umbridge at getting caught out).

£80 for a canvas from a photographer is cheap as chips! They usually start at £120 (even for a small one).

It's not worth going down the Small Claims Court route as the amount is too small, unless you want to make a statement with this issue - but then you're risking good will/reputation - and is it worth it?

1. Get some stickers to put on the back of your photo's for future clients.
2. Get a Terms & Conditions on your website AND also thinki about giving a copy to your clients too.

Additionally, so many photographers miss this one....Because you're "chance" of selling photos back to a client diminishes over time:
A) 3 months after the photo shoot send customers a letter asking if they want more images?
6 months later (or a year), send them another one - maybe offering to sell them the 'copyright' to all the images on a DVD?
This could be because you have to 'delete' or 'archive' them as you need the space for more images on your PC.



* I paid our (fantastic) wedding photographer last year for a photo package, thenarranged tp buy the rights to all pictures he took so I could do what I wanted with them.

^ Blockbuster rental do this. If you're "late" with a dvd return, they ask you for £10 in late fee's OR you can opt to simply rent £10 worth of DVD's...which 'feels' better for the customer.

birkee

If I buy a music CD, and copy it to my PC / MP3 player, then that's up to me. I've paid for the privilage of owning that music recording.

Why do photographers want to retain copyright of photographs, unless to use for commercial purposes?
If you want to make money out of photographs of someone elses baby / wedding photographs, YOU should be answerable too.
Loss of copyright of a photograph is minor compared to private photographs being used for commercial gain, and exposing people to the public at large.

Skyhigh

birkee wrote: »

Why do photographers want to retain copyright of photographs, unless to use for commercial purposes?
.

Please don't troll or go back and read the thread properly.

paulwf

I feel writing letters to the person saying you've been checking up on them on facebook and now want payment is not going to win friends and influence people. Spend your time working out how to get more customers not annoying happy ones.