| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/29/2005 05:43:09 PM · #26 |
which country are you in? -- it does make a difference
I.E. Canada's copyright laws are not insync with most of the world
IANAL
the web is a strange place & most laws were written prior to it's existance - the very act of viewing an image on the web means you are making a copy of that image - there is no other way of doing it
-it has to get from there to here(or wherever or where you are ) -
there is an expectation of fair use when you place something on the web
& it's possible to take someone to court but it very well may cost you big $$$ to do so - or it may have to take place in a jurisdiction that is unfriendly to the photographer -
these are things you must think of before puting anything on the web/email/blog/chat/etc -- don't put anything up/emailed/etc that you wouldn't want nailed to your front door of your home - because thats how accesible it is
you have to expect some copying to happen but (and one of the reasons i like DPC site) the resolutions are low - picture will look like crap when it is printed - this to me is more of a reflection of the person doing the copying/printing rather than the photographer ...
jezzz, this feels like a rant ... |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:43:52 PM · #27 |
i know several wedding photographers that make a nice living off just shooting photos and then handing over the originals for later prints. You make it more accessible for them then they are more likely to return.
I dont buy one cd from a band and see one concert like in the old days. I see them multiple times and buy apparel. You treat your customers right they return on good faith. When you have so many litigations and copyright crap people dont want to get sued and they spent all there money on one photo shoot so they may never come back.
Also if you take a photo of someone arent they entitled by your logic to have of that copyright. They are as much a part of that photo as you whotook it.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:49:05 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
i know several wedding photographers that make a nice living off just shooting photos and then handing over the originals for later prints. You make it more accessible for them then they are more likely to return.
I dont buy one cd from a band and see one concert like in the old days. I see them multiple times and buy apparel. You treat your customers right they return on good faith. When you have so many litigations and copyright crap people dont want to get sued and they spent all there money on one photo shoot so they may never come back.
Also if you take a photo of someone arent they entitled by your logic to have of that copyright. They are as much a part of that photo as you whotook it. |
But that's not the way it works. I get my models to sign a release so they have signed me any right to legally use their image. For that I give them a print. The image is mine. Let them buy their own camera and learn how to use it if they want the rights to the image. Or pay me a good deal extra.
Plus how many times is a couple supposed to get married that you will get repeat customers.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:49:49 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
i know several wedding photographers that make a nice living off just shooting photos and then handing over the originals for later prints. You make it more accessible for them then they are more likely to return.
I dont buy one cd from a band and see one concert like in the old days. I see them multiple times and buy apparel. You treat your customers right they return on good faith. When you have so many litigations and copyright crap people dont want to get sued and they spent all there money on one photo shoot so they may never come back.
Also if you take a photo of someone arent they entitled by your logic to have of that copyright. They are as much a part of that photo as you whotook it. |
My clients almost all come from referals. I am fair but I still own the work and that is spelled out in any contract that they sign. If they wish to purchase all rights I will sell them to them for an extra pice. As for the pics of the people, that is what model releases are for, because you can't publish them without the persons permission. I also have a model release built into all my contracts. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:50:25 PM · #30 |
but you dont need a release for documentary photography. So how come all those photojournalists can get away with it
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:51:10 PM · #31 |
Also if you take a photo of someone arent they entitled by your logic to have of that copyright. They are as much a part of that photo as you whotook it. [/quote]
The legal answer to that is NO. Now unless you get a model release you can't use it in advertising, but the photographer owns the copyright. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 05:55:46 PM · #32 |
| Photojuornalists don't need model releases because what is being published by the paper, tv or magazine is deemed "newsworthy" or news. If the same photo is used for other purposes they will need a model release. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:00:31 PM · #33 |
i know that but the logic seems screwy. Its the double edged sword i hate so much.
Sampling the beat is ok, thats still stealing
photojournalism is ok, thats still steeling
making bad remakes of shakespeare is ok, thats still stealing
patents cant be renewed, but copyrights can
this seems odd to me
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:04:03 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
i know that but the logic seems screwy. Its the double edged sword i hate so much.
Sampling the beat is ok, thats still stealing
photojournalism is ok, thats still steeling
making bad remakes of shakespeare is ok, thats still stealing
patents cant be renewed, but copyrights can
this seems odd to me |
Copyrights can't be renewed.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:07:12 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by mrmojo:
i know that but the logic seems screwy. Its the double edged sword i hate so much.
Sampling the beat is ok, thats still stealing
photojournalism is ok, thats still steeling
making bad remakes of shakespeare is ok, thats still stealing
patents cant be renewed, but copyrights can
this seems odd to me |
The laws are different for commercial use and editorial use as far as using the image of someone. For Commercial use you need their release, for editorial use you do not need their release, but you can't use it in an offensive way. That may be subjective and that is what keep the judges working..
Copyrights can't be renewed. |
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:07:26 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
Sampling the beat is ok, thats still stealing |
Samples have to be paid for and credited nowadays.
There was a short period in the late 80's when you could get away with it, but the record companies (or more likely James Brown's record company) put a stop to that pretty quickly.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:09:51 PM · #37 |
yes they can, after 1976 you can
that is why Disney has to finally re-release that rascist cartoon from the 1950s that had a bunch of slave stories like brair rabbit. Because if they dont they cannot renew their copyright.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:11:27 PM · #38 |
I know it's confusing and it always dosen't make sense. But the way the courts have ruled, if you are at a newsworthy event, being sports or breaking news you must assume your photo may be taken and used. It is deemed the publics right to know.
i.e. - I get a shot of someone entering a strip club and it is used with a story about strip clubs it's ok no matter how damaging or embarrising it is to that person, (although I usually ask before I take a pic if possible.) But if i make a poster of that person and hang it around his neighborhood, workplace and post it on the web saying he's a pervert it is slander. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:11:28 PM · #39 |
djs dont have to buy releases to sample and mix music
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:13:52 PM · #40 |
you know that back in the day radios got sued for playing music because no performer wanted their music played for free. they figured who would buy their music if they could hear it for free, and look how that turned out
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:14:29 PM · #41 |
[quote=rlinn3] I know it's confusing and it always dosen't make sense. But the way the courts have ruled, if you are at a newsworthy event, being sports or breaking news you must assume your photo may be taken and used. It is deemed the publics right to know.
This is correct at most times, but you don't want to mess with NFL teams and such with our permission. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:16:52 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
djs dont have to buy releases to sample and mix music |
No but nightclubs have to pay for a public performance license.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:17:59 PM · #43 |
also when you are talking about people scanning your wedding photos and printing a lesser quality photo. Guess what that is a lesser quality photo. If they want a good product they will always come back. People are willing to pay for quality but we make it hard with all this crap we add to their bills and paying ridiculous amounts of money for cds, movies, books. Whatever happened to the mom and pop shop or did they all up and move to New York and get greedy and pretentious
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:19:12 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
[quote=rlinn3] I know it's confusing and it always dosen't make sense. But the way the courts have ruled, if you are at a newsworthy event, being sports or breaking news you must assume your photo may be taken and used. It is deemed the publics right to know.
This is correct at most times, but you don't want to mess with NFL teams and such with our permission. |
True, but the teams are not publicly owned and are copyrighted by the leagues and owners. you have to have permission to photograph a game and if you want to keep shooting them you don't upset them with pics of the players picking their nose and whatnot:) High school teams fall under the same rules here also, you need to be sanctioned by the state High School Board to get sideline access so it's best to keep them happy also. |
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:30:52 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
yes they can, after 1976 you can |
Re-read it. Copyright is life plus 70 years. How could you renew it? You'll have been dead 70 years before the image or creation becomes public domain.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:36:15 PM · #46 |
Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date
These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.
For older works they can be renewed, but for anything you or I have created there is no provision for renewal nor the need to do so.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:37:52 PM · #47 |
yes you as a person, but remember most copyrights are owned by corporations that will be around in 70 years... How else can Gone with the wind and that disney movie i cant think of the name of right now get it. life plus 70 years doesnt mean anything when a corporations owns it. 70 years after what?
Also why should the magical number be 70. Why isnt it 180 or forever. It seems really subjective to me
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:41:09 PM · #48 |
what makes older works more special than ours that they can be renewed? Is our work not as important. Maybe it all should be free to everyone..... Or maybe I just want the US to be the eutopia it tried to be when it was first created
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:41:12 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
yes you as a person, but remember most copyrights are owned by corporations that will be around in 70 years... How else can Gone with the wind and that disney movie i cant think of the name of right now get it. life plus 70 years doesnt mean anything when a corporations owns it. 70 years after what?
Also why should the magical number be 70. Why isnt it 180 or forever. It seems really subjective to me |
Creator or author, not corporation. Read the text. It doesn't matter who owns the copyright.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2005 06:42:10 PM · #50 |
i was typing that post while he was posting it... So i didnt see it
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 04:06:16 PM EDT.
