Copyright Infringment

vax2002

You need to tighten up your T+C's and put a stamp on the rear of prints with copyright details on.
This is what you get when you undercut prices hoping to make it up on prints, you get shafted !
Time for a re-think ?

hippyadam

olivernaj wrote: »

You don't know how long we have been in business so you can't really say 'don't expect to be in business very long'.

Yes I can, start issuing proceedings against your customers for copyright infrigement and see how long you stay in business!

olivernaj wrote: »

It's just the first time someone has been stupid enough to post there picture of their new canvas on a social networking site and word got back to us fast.

Look at it this way, every time someone says "oh I love that print" said customer will say something along the limes of "oh yes, I got it from olivernaj photography, they're great/cheap/friendly/don't sue their customers" or words to that effect. Do you now want to sour this feeling of goodwill writing snotty letters about a small non commercial infringement???

olivernaj wrote: »

Yes they want cheap copies of there pictures when we sell them for £20 which I can fully understand as you can get them for £2

I'm with you...

olivernaj wrote: »

but you don't go and barter with primark for selling you a pair of leggings for £4 when they cost 20p to make, It's the way the business world works unfortunately.

Now you have lost me, you've made the sale, done the work and been paid. Did you offer the customer a canvas when they had the work done? If not, why not?

If you did and they went off and had it done elsewhere for less, then I could understand you objecting to the use of your copyrighted work...

because at the moment, it sounds like sour grapes IMHO.

Arg

marvin wrote: »

I thought that was what modern music was about......never mind!


Attitudes like Birkees are indemic in the modern world, it is why you have to lock things up as many see an open door or something that is not nailed down as not wanted therefore theirs to take,

Like photographers taking the !!!!?

pitkin2020

birkee wrote: »

Another irrational!
If the old lady has been paid for the privilage of you dipping into her handbag, and all you remove is the photographs you have paid for?
She's got plenty more if she wants them, AND she's been paid for them.

AND..... she wouldn't have been in possession of said photographs without YOUR contribution.

Its not irrational at all they are still both classed as theft. You haven't paid for the photographs, what you have actually paid for is the service of a photographer and an image. You haven't paid for a license of that image to do as you wish so its technically theft or more commonly known as copyright infringement. Whether you agree with it or not you can't just go around copying images, music etc and think its perfectly acceptable.

The OP is well within his rights to stick a bill in for it, but a politely worded letter explaining about copyright would probably suffice.

pitkin2020

Arg wrote: »

Like photographers taking the !!!!?

Why are they taking the !!!!?? You paid for a service if you didn't want a pro doing the job then why didn't you get uncle bob to take the shots with his compact then you could do what you want with the images.

Most creative industries make a living off the final product not what goes into making that final product if you seriously think a photographer or an artist or anyone from a creative industry is just going to allow you to freely copy and distribute there work your living on a different planet.

rosepetal_2

pitkin2020 wrote: »

Depends what the contract stated i'm afraid the photographer probably had a clause that covered useage for commercial work, if you wanted the copyright you have to pay for it.

I'm not disputing the photographer having and retaining the copyright, I'm pointing out that this does not give them the automatic right to reproduce the image themselves for other purposes such as marketing without the subject of the photographs consent i.e. the model release.

jexygirl

I think we need to calm down and read the original post here!

A customer, has paid for the session - all be it as a loss leader to the photographer - bought some images, not a canvass. They then randomly, posted a FB picture, not of the image, but of themselves, and, in the background, was a large repro.
Whilst I understand the OPs annoyance, and "copyright" at the same time, reading the replies, you would think they had reproduced 10,000 copies, and it had featured on the cover of Vogue as well as hello, Ok and featured on the nightly news. It was a picture of someone in their living room, accessible only to their friends...

(read on before I am condemned/stoned to death /put in stocks and have rotten tomatoes thrown at me - for that comment! And also know that I detest FB, and do not use it, apart from having a buisness FB, due to scary advice from gurus on this forum!)

OP I do totally respect your posts, and understand that you had the skill to capture the original image and feel somewhat perturbed that it has been reproduced without consent - but I gleen, that there would be no issue if you had gotten the buisness of producing the canvass - its the fact that you didnt. (unless ofc, if you had, you would still be annoyed that someone posted a picture of themselves on FB in their lounge with YOUR canvass in the background. That really WOULD open a can of worms!)

-If the person had not posted the picture on FB, there would not have been an issue, in that you wouldnt have known.

Everything for a reason, and this has helped you realise that you need to re write or tweak your terms, and actually, accept that people use things like FB and embrace it - state that if they appear on any social media site, that you are credited for it. What better way to improve buisness, than by lots and lots of people, that you don't know or have access too, knowing you took a fantastic picture?

esuhl

birkee wrote: »

Irrational. That's bringing third parties into the situation.

Where's the "third party" you speak of?! If I kill someone, there's just the two of us involved. If I unlawfully copy protected artworks, then again, there's me and the copyright owner - just the two of us!

birkee wrote: »

You put copyright infringement, and murder in a similar category?

Yes - neither are permitted by law. They aren't just in a similar category; they are in the identical category of "unlawful or illegal acts".

birkee wrote: »

Perhaps we should bring back the death penalty.

What on earth has that got to do with a debate as to whether or not you "own" licensed works?! Perhaps I'll have fish for dinner... but that's not what I tell my boss when he asks for the monthly performance statistics.

birkee wrote: »

Then lets sue Microsoft for providing the facility to do so in Windows Media Player. And all the other software suppliers too.

Um... okay... Do what you like... But, assuming that your not an "injured party" you don't have the right to sue Microsoft!

I don't know how the law relates to the "ripping" feature in WMP, but since ripping a CD is perfectly legal (unless that CD has been copyrighted), you may as well sue Ford for selling cars that can be driven in excess of the speed limit.

birkee wrote: »

Sure, they CAN copyright the image, and stop me selling it on to third parties, but the image purchased is my property, and if I want copies on my computer, or in an album, then that's up to me.

Except that it isn't... Not legally, anyway.

And how can you be stopped from selling an image to third parties if you can't be stopped from making unlawful copies? The risk of getting caught might be higher, but that is quite irrelevant to the issue of legality.

pitkin2020 wrote: »

Its not irrational at all {as stealing a physical photograph and making an unlicensed copy of a photograph} are still both classed as theft.

Theft is where a person is illegally deprived of property, so copyright infringement is definitely not theft.

classixuk

I have to be honest...this thread has had me in stitches.

I wonder if the poor woman even knows she's being discussed at such great lengths?

Ideas such as writing her a letter demanding £80, as "ignorance is no excuse" simply scream "amateur photographer who won't be in business very long" to me.

Let's look at what happened here.

This lady (as far as she is concerned) paid you a small sum to take photos of her baby. In return, she purchased some small 6 x 4 prints.

Some time later, she's shopping in a mall and sees a stall offering to transfer 'cherished family photos' onto canvas, mugs, glass etc. She checks it out and it's affordable, so she impulse bought.

She didn't think about the likes of copyright, because as far as she was concerned, the photo that she took to be enlarged was a photo of her baby, that she paid for. This is how Joe Public thinks.

The reason she didn't buy the canvas from you is that you didn't have the correct marketing strategy in place. Had you sent a mail-shot/email/Facebook Update just one week earlier planting the idea of a canvas into her mind with a call to action, you probably would have gotten the business. Only a poor businessman blames his customers.

Also, rather than worrying about this minor infraction, have you asked yourself yet..."Why am I not on a stall in that mall, not only doing the prints, but taking baby photos on the spot too?"...because it sounds to me as though you would do terrific business.

Going forward though, I do feel that offering to do a studio session or location shoot for cheap money attracts two types of customers; a 'financially challenged' one or a 'perpetual bargain hunter'.

Both are looking at up-front cost as the main driving factor of their buying decision. Cost comes before quality for these customers either because they have no other option, or they're tight fisted.

Neither of these customers will ever return and pay 25% more for a canvas print etc. later on, especially when they can go elsewhere for less money. Money is their driving factor.

In times like these, you can either stick with these customers or "move it up a notch".

Instead of aiming at low-income households who need to make a saving on a £50 expense, aim towards middle income households who need to make a saving on a £90 expense. That way, you can increase your initial price to £75, yet still have customers who feel you were great value for money compared to other photographers that they would usually have considered. Sticking with the low income households/perpetual bargain hunters will only work if you are prepared to 'weather the storm' of recession with them and sink if they do.

Think less about this woman's Facebook page, and more about your own business strategy going forward. The time spent doing that will be worth so much more than the £20 profit you've lost on one canvas.

Good luck!

pitkin2020

rosepetal wrote: »

I'm not disputing the photographer having and retaining the copyright, I'm pointing out that this does not give them the automatic right to reproduce the image themselves for other purposes such as marketing without the subject of the photographs consent i.e. the model release.

But they can, a model release form isn't always needed. The contract the bride and groom more than likely signed would have several clauses in, one of which would have been about the tog being the copyright owner and another stating the tog could you use the photos for marketing and other commercial uses like using it their portfolio etc. The bride and groom if they didn't want there pictures being used should have picked up on that and asked for it to be removed from the contract. Some togs are happy to do that as they don't need the pics for their portfolio or marketing others won't as they want the pics after the event for that purpose.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the way a photographer works but what I am saying is they are within their rights as copyright holder to use such pictures especially if a contract was agreed.