Copyright of Wedding Album

Discussion in 'Photography' started by annamalai, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. annamalai

    Mr. Strat Guest

    As with negatives, some places can't make decent print from a digital
    camera either. Most places won't make copies of images which were
    obviously taken by a professional.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jun 28, 2008
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. annamalai

    Mr. Strat Guest

    You've obviously never attempted to made a living in photography.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jun 28, 2008
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. No, Wiki is not an authority, its integrity is often compromised. No single
    on-line source really is, but Wiki often gives references to very
    authoritative research or data. It is a good starting point for much
    research. Google Scholar and other more respectable search engines often
    are pretty well identical to Wiki so for convenience I'll generally start
    with Wiki and then find support elsewhere for any claims before accepting them.

    Secret Squirrel
     
    clandestin_écureuil, Jun 28, 2008
    #63
  4. annamalai

    ray Guest

    Actually, the copyright of work for hire often resides with the employer.
     
    ray, Jun 28, 2008
    #64
  5. Gee. Who'da thunk it?

    Most places won't make copies of images which were
    This would have to be the dumbest thing I've read this week.

    Cal
     
    Cal I Fornicate, Jun 28, 2008
    #65
  6. annamalai

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article
    : <>,
    :
    : > This argument (poor quality prints) seems to be wide spread. But how
    : > does this apply to digital copies like JPEG files? Suppose I want to
    : > upload the files to an online photo album (like Google's Picasa)? Why
    : > would not the photo company allow it? Excessive copyright is not a
    : > beneficial thing. I've been reading through the history of copyrights
    : > and I am convinced that copyright reform is needed. For example, I
    : > strongly agree with folks at
    :
    : As with negatives, some places can't make decent print from a digital
    : camera either. Most places won't make copies of images which were
    : obviously taken by a professional.

    What is the definition of "obviously" in this context?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 28, 2008
    #66
  7. annamalai

    Cats Guest


    Your brother should have read the contract he signed. It's perfectly
    clear in UK law and presumably in the law of many other countries that
    the copyright resides with the person who pressed the shutter.
     
    Cats, Jun 28, 2008
    #67
  8. annamalai

    Cats Guest

    <snip>

    The services he brought where those specified in the contract he
    signed. It's all in the small print. If he wanted to upload to the
    web he should have checked beforehand.
     
    Cats, Jun 28, 2008
    #68
  9. annamalai

    Cats Guest

    But they didn't feel capable of taking the photos, so they hired a
    photographer to take them without reading the small print.
    Because the law in India seems to be the same as in the UK - the
    copyright resides with the photographer, not his/her models.
    Because that is the contract that was signed - the photographer agreed
    to sell his/her copyright, or he/she is employed by the company and
    that is part of their terms of employment. My employers own all the
    copyright to my work (not photography) but if I wrote some software in
    my spare time that would be my copyright.
     
    Cats, Jun 28, 2008
    #69
  10. annamalai

    Cats Guest

    In the UK the photographer owns the copyright unless there is a
    contract to the contrary. In the UK your brother would *not* have
    'soft copies' unless his contract with the photographer stated that he
    would.
     
    Cats, Jun 28, 2008
    #70
  11. annamalai

    Cats Guest

    <snip>

    But that's exactly what hiring a photographer is - a business
    transaction. Subject to appropriate laws, with a contract that your
    brother signed.
     
    Cats, Jun 28, 2008
    #71
  12. annamalai

    Cats Guest

    Please read it carefully. What was repudiated was a *perpetual*
    copyright. From the reference:


    "Legal Issues
    Thus the Lords rejected the notice of a perpetual copyright and held
    that it had not previously existed before the Statute of Anne and
    older works fall into the public domain and are available to everyone
    when the copyright term expires. "Knowledge has no value or use for
    the solitary owner: to be enjoyed it must be communicated," wrote
    Camden.

    The Lords addressed the following questions:

    1. "Whether, at common law, an author of any book or literary
    composition, had the sole right of first printing and publishing the
    same for sale, and might bring an action against any person who
    printed, published, and sold the same, without his consent?[1]

    The Lords answered this question in the affirmative with a vote of ten
    to one.

    2. "If the author had such right originally, did the law take it away
    upon his printing and publishing such book or literary composition,
    and might any person afterward reprint and sell, for his own benefit,
    such book or literary composition, against the will of the author?[2]

    The Lords answered this question in the negative with a vote of seven
    to four.

    3. "If such action would have lain at common law, is it taken away by
    the statute of 8th Anne: and is an author, by the said statute,
    precluded from every remedy except on the foundation of the said
    statute, and on the terms and conditions prescribed thereby?"[3]

    This question was answered affirmatively, six to five.

    The resulting decision indicated that a common law perpetual copyright
    may have existed before the Statute of Anne was passed, but that any
    such right was entirely precluded by the statute. Perpetual copyright
    was thus effectively ended as a legal concept in Britain."

    To paraphrase numbers 1 & 2 in more modern language:
    1. "Under common law, does the creator have the sole right to the
    first printing/pbuslishing etc. of their work, and may they bring an
    action against anyone who who printed, published, and sold the same,
    without their consent?[1]

    YES (10:1)

    2. "If the auther had the copyright originally, did anyone else have
    the rights to the reprints against the author's will?"

    NO (7:4)

    In plain language, the creator owns the copyright under UK law. It's
    not a perpetual copyright, but one that exists for their lifetime and
    a certain number of years beyond. If they choose to sell it or give
    it away that is their right.
     
    Cats, Jun 28, 2008
    #72
  13. annamalai

    Vance Guest

    Actually, it's true. It was weird the first time I ran into it, but I
    had to provide documentation that the customer did have the right to
    have the images printed. One of those big box stores like Wal-Mart
    refused to print the images because 'they were obviously
    professionally done.' I now routinely include the copyrights with the
    DVD's.

    Vance
     
    Vance, Jun 29, 2008
    #73
  14. annamalai

    dadiOH Guest

    Why do you say that, it is true. If they do the copy they lay themselves
    open for a suit mand they have relatively deep pockets. Hell, one could
    probably make a pretty good income by *registering* a copyright (so damages
    don't need to be proved) then getting a shill to take it around to photo
    finishing places until he finds a sucker that will copy it.


    --

    dadiOH
    ____________________________

    dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
    ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
    LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
    Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
     
    dadiOH, Jun 29, 2008
    #74
  15. annamalai

    Wilson Guest

    Contracts are a cornerstone of a civilized society. They represent
    agreements between people that can be enforced by a court if need be.

    Here's my good idea for you. Before you sign a contract read it, understand
    it, and make sure you agree to the terms. If you can't do that then have
    someone you trust read it and explain to you. By signing a contract you are
    representing that you agree to the terms and will abide by them.

    Once I was sued over a matter clearly covered by a standard form contract.
    In court my attorney basically asked two questions of the person bringing
    suit: Can you read English (the language the contract was written in) and
    is this your signature. The answer to both questions was yes. The judge
    ruled in my favor.

    Life seems to go better when you understand the agreements you've made.
     
    Wilson, Jun 29, 2008
    #75
  16. That's be the second dumbest.

    How can they ascertain that a professional was involved without also
    assuming that all amateurs are totally inept? There are many amateurs
    who can match or surpass the work of day to day professionals.

    Unless the image was in a format that displayed a copyright there is no
    possible way for them to know. I have never had anyone so much as check
    the exif data before providing as many copies as I asked for. Ludicrous!

    Cal
     
    Cal I Fornicate, Jun 29, 2008
    #76
  17. Because it isn't true. They aren't breaching copyright by copying
    something at my request. They have no onus to determine the provenance
    of any file they are asked to copy. They aren't selling it, all they are
    doing is making a copy.
    All copying and printing services would go out of business if this was
    the case as there is no way to prove that the person requesting the copy
    holds copyright unless they were present at the time the image was
    taken. It isn't possible.

    I can take any image from any source and claim that it is mine. As per
    other threads, it is easy to swap or remove the exif data, so that
    doesn't provide valid proof.

    Where are all you fruitcakes coming from?

    Even with heavily protected items like movies and software, prosecutions
    are always for distributing or selling, not for actual copying.

    I have used a camera in a professional sense for most of my working life
    (no, I am not a commercial photographer) and have never had anyone even
    ask whether I held copyright to anything that I have had commercially
    reproduced.

    If someone uses an image without a licence in a publication, say an ad
    in a magazine, the person who created the ad is prosecuted, not the
    company who ran the print job. When you place an ad you need to
    indemnify the the publication against possible prosecution for breach of
    copyright - invasion of privacy etc. Illegitimate use of copyright
    material is actionable, not copying it.

    Where the hell do you people get this crap?

    Cal
     
    Cal I Fornicate, Jun 29, 2008
    #77
  18. annamalai

    tony cooper Guest

    You might want to check the sources before you draw and fire.
    Otherwise, you end up wounding your foot.

    http://photos.walmart.com/copyrightpolicy

    http://photo.walgreens.com/storepage/storePageId=Copyright+Policy

    Most photo services have similar policies, and they do enforce them.

    Camera stores, brick and mortar ones, are very strict in enforcing
    this. Bring in a disk that in any way indicates that it is the work
    of a professional photographer, or a print with a photographer's logo
    or watermark on it, and they won't touch it.

    There's no need to look at EXIF data. Watermarks, embedded copyright
    information, and stamped logos blow your cover.
     
    tony cooper, Jun 29, 2008
    #78
  19. annamalai

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <Eob$>, Nospam
    :
    : > There are lots of polite words in the English language that can be used.
    :
    : Hey, I didn't use the "F" word. Unfortunately, our public education
    : system in this country has done a pathetic job.

    Speak for yourself. It's not the fault of the rest of us that you didn't pay
    attention in your high school English classes.

    It's embarrassing enough to be an American just now, given our bellicose
    government and its moronic leader. Please don't make it any worse.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 29, 2008
    #79
  20. annamalai

    tony cooper Guest

    Good Lord. What do you think charging you for making a copy is? Is
    that not selling their service?
    It's not at all rubbish.
    EXIF data has nothing to do with it. The proof is in the watermark,
    embedded copyright information, stamped logo, or information on the
    disk brought in. Most studios that do portrait work identify their
    work on the prints and disks.
    A sane and logical position. Information on this is readily available
    at sites like
    http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/consumer/doingMore/copyright.shtml

    There are associations like the Professional Photographers of America
    who do pursue violations for their members. The individual
    photographer may not mount a case, but some association he belongs to
    will.

    Can an individual get away with having a copy made of a copyrighted
    image? Sure. The individual can trim a print to remove the stamped
    logo, obscure the watermark in Photoshop, or slip it past some teenage
    clerk who doesn't pay attention.

    Can the individual and/or the store be fined for violating the law?
    Yes. The associations look for cases to make examples of to deter
    other stores from being slip-shod in enforcement.

    I don't know where you live, but if you live in the US take a print
    from Olan Mills to Wal-Mart and ask them to whip off 25 copies. See
    what happens.

    (The use of "rubbish" indicates that you may be from the UK, so
    substitute some UK portrait studio and Boots for what I've written.)
     
    tony cooper, Jun 29, 2008
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.