Copyright Infringment

dnalsrammaj

jexygirl wrote: »

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?

Thanks Jexygirl... All i want to do now is stop it from happening again. I can rest safe in the knowledge that none of the popular photo/canvas printers will reproduce my images because they are clued up on the copyright laws. But clearly this trader on a little stall in the shopping centre thinks that they can make a living from other people's images and i don't know how i can stop this. This particular customer also has friends who had photography done by us, is there any way i can ensure that their cheap 6x4 prints aren't up on their wall as a 30x20 canvas next week without me being paid for it!!?

dnalsrammaj

thankyou CLASSIXUK.
Your post makes a lot of sense.

We do have an issue with our low income customers but we have developed quite a successful part time business without spending a penny on advertising. There's no chance we would be attracting these middle income customers with our facebook page!

As for the market stall we are both happy in our regular jobs, we are simply using our skills as an extra income generator/hobby.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by

'weather the storm' of recession with them and sink if they do.

Thankyou

birkee

It's about time the professional photographers were told to get stuffed. Their prices are outragous anyway, and some that pretend to be professional, have appeared on programmes like Watchdog.

You can have all the copyright pictures you want, but not from any of MY family occasions. If everybody else says the same, you can talk to other ex professional photographers down the jobcenter.

esuhl:
Quote:
Originally Posted by birkee
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!

Gun supplier, gun purchaser, and murder victim? You logic is faulty, like several of your points.
I wasn't talking about ME suing Microsoft, but about the music producers suing Microsoft.

Where you are going with this copyright act, is that you buy a Sony music CD, and Sony then, under threat of law, tell you you are only allowed to play it on Sony equipment, AND, maybe a specific model. Then there are all the other music producers, telling you what equipment you must play their music on.
Once I have paid for photographs, they are mine in their entirety, to do with what I will, EXCEPT sell them to other people, or for publication.
Are you now going to give photographers the right to come round to my house and check I haven't scanned them into my computer?
The same goes for music. You are angling for a Police state where we don't even bother with search warrents anymore. For what? Photographers to drag extra profits out of the publics pocket after the event?

Seriously flawed logic!

classixuk

dnalsrammaj wrote: »

thankyou CLASSIXUK.
Your post makes a lot of sense.

We do have an issue with our low income customers but we have developed quite a successful part time business without spending a penny on advertising. There's no chance we would be attracting these middle income customers with our facebook page!

As for the market stall we are both happy in our regular jobs, we are simply using our skills as an extra income generator/hobby.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by

"Weather the storm" of recession and sink if they do

Thankyou

Hiya,

Sometimes my analogies do need explaining.

A lot of poorer families are currently having to "weather the storm". Inflation is rocketing through the roof which is cutting their disposable income considerably. Many jobs are under threat too.

Take for example a couple working in a supermarket. They're scared they'll lose their jobs or have their hours cut, when their 18 year old son comes home and announces he has lost his job at Iceland. Let's say their son used to give them £30 a week board. They're now £120 a month down. Not only that, but let's say their son is paying off a TV from Crazy Georges at £25 per month, and has a Sky Box in his room. There's an extra £35.

So suddenly this couple have had their income cut by £155 per month, and that's before they even find out if their own hours or jobs are under threat.

They react by cutting back on their finances. The Sky package gets reduced to the lowest level and some items of furniture are sent back to Crazy Georges.

They are sinking.

And if your business relies on their custom, you will sink with them.

That's what I meant.

But I assumed that you were running this as a business, not just a part-time thing, hence my advice that you need to get out of the cheap market and raise yourself up into the next one.

Savvy_Sue

dnalsrammaj wrote: »

Thanks Jexygirl... All i want to do now is stop it from happening again. I can rest safe in the knowledge that none of the popular photo/canvas printers will reproduce my images because they are clued up on the copyright laws. But clearly this trader on a little stall in the shopping centre thinks that they can make a living from other people's images and i don't know how i can stop this. This particular customer also has friends who had photography done by us, is there any way i can ensure that their cheap 6x4 prints aren't up on their wall as a 30x20 canvas next week without me being paid for it!!?

Do you have any identifying information on your photos to indicate that they are professionally taken? Forgive me if you've said this, but I don't recall seeing it.

If you don't, how is the little stall in the market place supposed to know where the photo's come from?

hippyadam

dnalsrammaj wrote: »

The customer chose to buy our cheapest option small print and then take it to a trader in a local shopping centre to have it blown up to a canvas for a few pounds cheaper than what we would have charged for the same size canvas with the full quality image.

Another thing everyone in this post seems to be confused about... At no point have we intended to write to the customer requesting the money for the canvas. We planned to approach the trader who printed the canvas. As they have made money out of my copyrighted image!

Thankyou for everyone's helpful replies

Aha!!

That makes more sense I wasn't aiming to offend either of you just offering my tuppence.

To be fair the trader has most definitely infringed your copyright, but chances are they just wont care in my experience... Our local canvas print type place seems to supply nothing but other peoples images! (and the prices are higher than yours and I hear they are useless to boot) :eek:

As others have said I probably wouldn't spend much time or money on it as intellectual property issues always seem to drag on and attract prohibitively high legal charges...

I do however stand by my points regarding copyright in general, in the past 10 years life has simply left them looking like something out of the dark ages, much like UK libel laws

Arg

pitkin2020 wrote: »

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.

In most creative industries the employer owns the work. I don't see how it's any different from someone hiring a photographer for a wedding perhaps you're getting confused with the paparazzi although it looks like you share the same morals.

Uncertain

Arg wrote: »

In most creative industries the employer owns the work. I don't see how it's any different from someone hiring a photographer for a wedding perhaps you're getting confused with the paparazzi although it looks like you share the same morals.

The legal position is that, in the absence of a WRITTEN agreement to the contrary, the copyright of a photograph belongs to the author (i.e. the photographer) and not to the person who commissioned it.

Note: Copyright is one of the very few things in English law that can only be assigned IN WRITING.

In the case of a company who employ photographers on their staff the copyright belongs to the company and not to the individual photographers.

This all came about in the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. Before then, by default, the copyright belonged to the person who commissioned the photograph and not to the photographer.

That is the strict legal position. However, in my personal view, this is becoming largely theoretical in the case of professional social photography. The majority of clients simply do not understand the concept and few people will look favourably on a photographer who takes legal action in individual cases.

Obviously in the commercial world with "professional" buyers who understand the concepts involved it is more relevant.

The Act was written before everybody had the technology at home to make decent quality copies and has simply been overtaken by events.

I do hope the OP in this thread has never photocopied a map, played the radio or a CD in his clients hearing or downloaded a copyright file from the internet. Obviously every last piece of software on his computer will be properly licensed!

jexygirl

Whilst I am not mocking, I am still finding this thread a little "dramatic" to say the least - then today this happened to add to it!
A regular customer pitched up, with a well read and well known Scottish magazine. The FRONT COVER picture was taken from our private beach, without our permission - just some random photographer wandered down. (we have signs that it is a private beach) There is no credit to our inn for the picture, only a credit as a view of the loch, and despite it being our private beach, owned by us, no one was asked, and it was printed - a view that was not and could not have been taken from anywhere else... and made a front page...
We constantly have people stop, using our carpark, and often our loo! Without ordering anything or us earning a penny... but we do not own the view, only the loo and carpark!
The picture that made a front page for the photographer, and he no doubt earned a substantial amount for, taken without permission, from my private beach, I enquired about a copy of the original - and apparently, I have to pay to get a copy of "his" work- sorry all sympathy gone....

dnalsrammaj

was the photographer trespassing!!? lol.. sorry if the OP seems dramatic; we were just annoyed that we made so little from the particular customer and they took our trade elsewhere!..
Thanks everyone