Copyright Infringment

Uncertain

jexygirl wrote: »

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....

As far as I know (and this is getting a little off my specialist subject!) this doesn't give you any legal rights over the photograph - sorry!

Also, this is Scottish law which MAY influence the position.

The nearest clear cut example I can think of would be an attraction (e.g a museum, be it paid or free) which expressly bans photography on their premises. Within certain limits they can decide what they allow or forbid on their property and this then becomes part of the terms and conditions under which a person is admitted. If the photographer then breaches those terms the owner has, at least in theory, a claim against them.

What they can't do however is force the photographer to hand over the film (or delete the images in this modern digital age). Various places fell foul of this in the past by forcibly removing film from cameras etc. At a minimum this is criminal damage and may also be an assult!

The legal position regarding photography is widely misunderstood even by individual police officers. This reached a point where the Metropolitan Police even had to issues guidelines to their own officers effectively reminding them not to make up laws as they went along.

Another popular misconception is that it is illegal to take photographs of children playing in the local park without getting their parents permission. There is no such law. Equally I could take a photo of random people walking down the street and, if it was good enough, earn my fortune selling it all over the world. The people in the photo have no say in the matter unless I asked them if they would take part, perhaps by suggesting they stand over there. Once I do that they become a model, whether paid or not, and acquire some rights.

There are actually very few restrictions on what or who you can photograph - long may it stay that way.

pitkin2020

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.

You have no idea what you are talking about do you. Yes whilst most people who are employed the employer owns the copyright as thats part of the contract of employment, in return that person has job security, paid holiday and other benefits. Those that are freelance own the copyright and can get a higher premium for there work, but they have no job security like the paid employee.

As for hiring a wedding tog that is all you are doing is hiring someone for a day for a service. Most wedding togs will then spend a lot of hours editing and preparing pictures there is more to it than just taking the shots on the day, there can be a lot of man hours going into a wedding album.

I suggest you go back and read my posts I never said it was right or that I agreed with the fact togs can sell. publish or do what ever they please with most pictures I am merely pointing out that they can do it.

pitkin2020

dnalsrammaj wrote: »

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

Even if he/she was tresspasing its a civil matter and you can only claim for a loss. Maybe try and find out who the photographer was and ask him/her directly for a copy as it was taken on your private beach and you think thats a fair exchange (access albeit unauthorised for a picture).

Whilst I understand your frustration OP its really not worth pursuing in this instance as it you would lose far more than the cost of the canvas just from the bad mouthing the customer would give you. Get some stickers printed up and apply them to back of all prints so other retailers know its a copyright piece.

Regshoe

I won't argue with those who have pointed out that the copyright law is on the photographers side, or offered suggestions about how this might be enforced. I do agree with those who have questioned UK copyright law though. Although I understand that commercial entities have to recoup their costs I think the idea of people making income for a days work for years to come is not how society should operate.

A good example of this is drugs company patents that effectively deny life saving medicine to poorer countries (and actually some of the richer ones too for the outrageously expensive drugs). Clearly they need to make money to reinvest in future development and pay their investors/creditors, but do they need as much patent protection as they have?

As an accountant If I drew up a set of accounts for somebody and they later requested another copy I doubt I would try to charge them anything bar out of pocket expenses and I would absorb these if they were small enough. I may not be a "creative artist" but I have still spent time creating something which I have then handed a copy of to a client, but in my case they would (most likely, there are complicated rules) own the documents completely and my whole charging model would take this into account - i.e. my intial fees would be all I expect out of the arrangement.

I'm not trying to criticise the OP as they are simply operating within the market environment they find themselves in, charging little for the initial work and trying to make money from future prints, if this is how the industry is setup they would likely find it hard to break with this and charge more up front, as presumably they would be undercut. Answer this - if you were booking a photo session would you look at the initial costs, or would you think "hmmm what if I wanted another print in future.....", well I might think that I suppose - but then I'm a grey suited accountant!

As to UK copyright laws being out of date - it would seem the government would agree, as I recall there is to be a review of copyright laws in the future. In particular the issue of transferring music (etc) between multiple media is to be revised, currently I believe it is technically against copyright to transfer a CD to an MP3 player, but in practice I doubt anybody would take that one to court.

I would agree with the previous posters who have said that the OP should ensure all photographs are clearly marked as copyright in future (if they aren't already). If they aren't marked and there was an attempt to pursue the business who created the copies rather than the individual who took them to be copied then presumably you would need to prove that the business knew they were copyrighted. Quite how far this other copying service needs to go to ensure an image is ok to copyright I don't know.

Uncertain

Regshoe wrote: »

I won't argue with those who have pointed out that the copyright law is on the photographers side, or offered suggestions about how this might be enforced. I do agree with those who have questioned UK copyright law though. Although I understand that commercial entities have to recoup their costs I think the idea of people making income for a days work for years to come is not how society should operate.

I was one of those who explained the legal position but also suggested that it has become unworkable and even laughable. In the past I had a lot of contact with professional photographers.

Slightly playing devil's advocate it is perhaps worth looking at the history as this partly explains the current mess......

Before 1988 the copyright of a professional photograph, by default, belonged to the client. Many people thought this was unfair as it treated photographers differently to other artists. If you went to a portrait painter he retained the copyright but if you went to a portrait photographer it was yours.

However, it was normal for the photographer to retain the negatives. In those pre computer days the only way to get a decent print was to have it made from the original negative. As a result, a photographer made some of his money up front and then, on average, a bit more over the years from re-prints.

Generally speaking if the photographer did a job on transparency film, which was to be handed over to the client for press reproduction, he charged more as this was then the end of the matter.

There were plenty of examples of photographer's work being exploited. For example a small job was commissioned then the client (who owned the copyright) sold the picture for some other purpose all round the world.

Rightly or wrongly lobbying led to the law being changed so that, by default, the photographer retained the copyright of his work just like any other artist.

However, this coincided with advent of desktop computers capable of processing images, high quality photocopiers, digital photography and the internet. Amazing as it may be, none of these really existed in 1988.

So now we have a situation that the photographer has the copyright but in a world where it is almost unenforceable and totally misunderstood! Also, the general expectation of what a client is willing to pay hasn't changed from the days when some of the income would have been earned later from re-prints.

Such is progress