photo copyright

Collabora

lamialex wrote: »

This is the web design company who created the website where my pictures are:
http://www.localstanding.co.uk/

They probably haven't got a clue that my name should be credited and that they are my pictures.
The domain name is UK but not sure about the hosting, I am not sure where to check if it is US or UK.

the servers IP is in UK http://whois.domaintools.com/localstanding.co.uk but the nameservers are godaddy

send the DMCA notice to the abuse contact from the below link

http://whois.domaintools.com/91.208.99.12

they may act on it, but are not legally obliged too

next time place your own copyright notice on all your images (light grey text someone on the image that can be read)

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

I had a speaker once at a camera club, who gave a national company loads of their photos, of an Olympic sport for goodwill and free. They used them throughout 2012 and he received not a penny. Fool was he.


The morale is, would the company he gave the photos to, allow him to walk out of one of their stores with a bottle of wine without paying for it?

That is why my photos and those of others in my group on face book use big watermarks on all photographs and they are of low resolutions as well.

JReacher1

The whole thing seems a bit petty. You've fallen out with a friend so they've stopped putting your name on the photos you had provided. So now you want the website to take the photos down.

Does it really matter?

The phrase being the bigger person comes to mind.....

Collabora

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

I had a speaker once at a camera club, who gave a national company loads of their photos, of an Olympic sport for goodwill and free. They used them throughout 2012 and he received not a penny. Fool was he.


The morale is, would the company he gave the photos to, allow him to walk out of one of their stores with a bottle of wine without paying for it?

That is why my photos and those of others in my group on face book use big watermarks on all photographs and they are of low resolutions as well.

Unless they pay for the copyright.

Last year i had the chance to take some promotional shots for a well know ferry company, it meant i had to force myself to spend a long weekend on one of their ferrys and i had 2 days in Amsterdam and apart from a bit spending money it cost me nothing and at the end of it they asked for the full copyright ( this was never mentioned in the contract), so i told them it would cost then 1K for full copyright and they agreed

artbaron

Don't waste time over it. You'll never get a legal judgement and getting the person to take the photos down is of no practical benefit, even if it were possible to compel them to do so. You can't undertake some casual agreement then start getting all legal on someone when they don't do what you believe they agreed to. You either accept that the other person might not do what they promised or you do it professionally from the get-go and cover your bases. You can't just decide to change the goal-posts and expect it to work out. Take it as a lesson learned and move on.

Marktheshark

This promote your work ?
Its not work unless you get paid, good photographers get paid and it has very little to do with "getting your name known"
You dont get people tarmacking drives, building free houses, selling cars for free or any other job, they start out by getting paid, thats the best name to have.
Someone who is good enough to be paid.
What kind of name would you get giving away free pictures ?
A mug ?

Baffled by this "credit" thing, who gives two frigs who you are, might as well be any name.
You think you should be paid for photography work, then charge for it.
If some other muggings wants to work for "credits" let them crack on.
At least you wont cost yourselves any money doing so.

artbaron

I'm sure you've seen it before, but

http://youtu.be/mj5IV23g-fE

JReacher1

Just to clarify these photos are of your ex friend in concert? And this person has used them on their personal website to show them in action?

If that is true then I go back to my previous post and say it's incredibly petty to pursue this any further.

Collabora

Next time OP, if you do take photographs paid or unpaid get a release form (contract) signed by both parties which outlines how many pics then get and what they can use them for and how long for, then if you fall out and find that that have broken the release form then you have something to fight them with

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Collabora wrote: »

Unless they pay for the copyright.

Last year i had the chance to take some promotional shots for a well know ferry company, it meant i had to force myself to spend a long weekend on one of their ferrys and i had 2 days in Amsterdam and apart from a bit spending money it cost me nothing and at the end of it they asked for the full copyright ( this was never mentioned in the contract), so i told them it would cost then 1K for full copyright and they agreed

Hence the watermark on the promotional images. And payment for the published ones.