Copyright of Photo?

RFW

techspec wrote: »

As far as im concerned - if a pics on the net i can use it.

It should be considered the same as going in Tesco and saying "look at all the food in here, I'll take some of that". Being available doesn't make it free. Generally speaking the genie is out of the bottle so not much can be done about it in most cases.

Si_Clist

RainbowDrops wrote: »

It actually belongs to the owner.
I work in publishing, and we generally have authors signing over the copyright for their images etc to us.

But I'm just being pedantic

True. I was going to be pedantic too and use the term "author of the work", but when we're dealing with people who haven't a clue about intellectual property rights, I thought it best to stick to everyday terminology.

Just out of curiosity (ex pro photographer here!), do your authors actually assign their copyright to you, or do they in fact just license your use of their images?

RainbowDrops

Si_Clist wrote: »

True. I was going to be pedantic too and use the term "author of the work", but when we're dealing with people who haven't a clue about intellectual property rights, I thought it best to stick to everyday terminology.

Heh, good point!

Si_Clist wrote: »

Just out of curiosity (ex pro photographer here!), do your authors actually assign their copyright to you, or do they in fact just license your use of their images?

I work in scientific publishing, so it's dealing with figures & imaged on research papers. They assign the copyright of such to us.

spacey2012

If the image is owned or assigned by some litigious like Getty Images, they will sue you for £3000 which is the average claim.
When you steal copyright the law allows what is known as flagrancy damages, this is for not only the loss of revenue but the insult and damage done to the reputation of the creator by having the work stolen.
Copyright theft is also a separate criminal offence.

Some people make extremely good incomes by leaving work out to be stolen and then tracking down offenders and suing them.
So, beware of stealing photographs.
Buy a camera and take your own.

meg00

"but when we're dealing with people who haven't a clue about intellectual property rights, I thought it best to stick to everyday terminology"

I do have a clue - which is why I asked the question in the first place - and I understand the terminology having worked in newspapers for over 30 years.

It did occur to me however, in these days of mobile phones/photos, a Member of the Royal Family at a public event will be snapped about a squillion times - it must be pretty much impossible that one individual could claim to be the author of a picture taken in such circumstances.

Professional courtesy has prevailed, the item has been listed without any mention of their Majesties preferences for hunting shooting & fishing waxed outerwear.
Thanks all.

RFW

meg00 wrote: »

It did occur to me however, in these days of mobile phones/photos, a Member of the Royal Family at a public event will be snapped about a squillion times - it must be pretty much impossible that one individual could claim to be the author of a picture taken in such circumstances.

No two pictures taken by different people can ever be the same. I'd imagine newspaper photographers taking pictures of members of the Royal Family at exactly the same moment will know which picture is theirs.

theonlywayisup

Si_Clist wrote: »

True. I was going to be pedantic too and use the term "author of the work", but when we're dealing with people who haven't a clue about intellectual property rights, I thought it best to stick to everyday terminology.

Just out of curiosity (ex pro photographer here!), do your authors actually assign their copyright to you, or do they in fact just license your use of their images?

Rather sweeping.

I think you may be surprised......

Si_Clist

meg00 wrote: »

"but when we're dealing with people who haven't a clue about intellectual property rights, I thought it best to stick to everyday terminology"

I do have a clue - which is why I asked the question in the first place - and I understand the terminology having worked in newspapers for over 30 years.

and

theonlywayisup wrote: »

Rather sweeping.

I think you may be surprised......

Sorry guys, I thought it was clear from the thread that I was replying to RainbowDrops and we were both referring to the post by "techspec".

Unfortunately the fact remains that those of us to whom this stuff matters are in a very small minority indeed nowdays ...

Mistral001

What the OP was proposing was not only copyright infringement, but also the use of a person's name to help sell a product. If this was a celebrity their name is up for sale often to the highest bidder often for millions. they will certainly not let someone do it for free on ebay.


BTW with the Royal Family, there might be laws against using their name to promote goods. Don't you have to be "appointed by HM the Queen" or something like that?

Kernow666

there are 1000s of photos on ebay that people have stolen from the likes of google images and various websites and they print them at home and sell them on , dont see a problem with that and what the OP is doing isnt worth worrying about