DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> I'm being sued over a photo!
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 69, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/05/2005 03:25:11 PM · #26
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Just my observation...

If you were hired by a company to make photos of a church interior and exterior, you would need an agreement with that company (which it should have obtained from the church) before you are allowed to use the photos for yourself in ANY way. You don't automatically have any rights to a photo when you are contracted to shoot them. The written agreement between you and the company that hired you will outline your rights. If there is no written agreement, you should not assume that you have these rights.

Exactly opposite, If there is no written agreement then you own all the rights. You would still need a property release to sell them for comercial stock. You could sell them as prints all day long. It's not as if he was trespassing when he took the photos either.
 10/05/2005 03:51:32 PM · #27
Originally posted by MeThoS:

Exactly opposite, If there is no written agreement then you own all the rights. You would still need a property release to sell them for comercial stock. You could sell them as prints all day long. It's not as if he was trespassing when he took the photos either.


I wish I could find legal documentation to support that claim. I can't and this is why I don't assume it.

Message edited by author 2005-10-05 15:52:13.
 10/05/2005 03:54:52 PM · #28
Originally posted by eschelar:
That's good for a larf. I couldn't get the name of the church. I love the predeliction some people have for suing.

I slipped on a stair at a train station when I was with some friends. I noticed the stairs were wet and slippy, so I turned to tell them, slipping and falling hard on my a$$butt. I bruised the inner side of my gluteus muscle. Hurt. Before I knew any of that, all of my friends came down and everyone asked if I was ok. One guy pipes up "Man, we gotta Sue." First thing out of his mouth.

For what it's worth, I don't think God really has much of a history of suing. Therefore, it's probably some high and mighty pompous preacher. I doubt he has the resource to go through with it considering all the money that has been spent on defending all them pedophiles. His higher up will probably tell him that the church doesn't want to spend money on another legal battle. That's after all the reason he's so mad in the first place.

If the lawyer does write, you might set up a little poll station near the church asking people if they or their children have ever been abused by the pastor. Odds are pretty good you might come across something.

Alternatively you can make a little sign up that says: Will Sue people randomly for food/money to pay for pedophiles.


huh?
 10/05/2005 03:55:41 PM · #29
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by MeThoS:

Exactly opposite, If there is no written agreement then you own all the rights. You would still need a property release to sell them for comercial stock. You could sell them as prints all day long. It's not as if he was trespassing when he took the photos either.


I wish I could find legal documentation to support that claim. I can't and this is why I don't assume it.


You could start here. When you take a picture you own the copyright, unless you've signed that away in writing. If someone pays you to take the pictures, and don't get exclusive rights to the images, as part of that contract - you can do what you like with them.
 10/05/2005 03:56:57 PM · #30
Is there a "Legal issues for photographers for Dummies" book out there?
 10/05/2005 03:59:47 PM · #31
Originally posted by ttreit:
Is there a "Legal issues for photographers for Dummies" book out there?


try here for a start

Though in this case, its more about work for hire and the contract that was in place before the photos were taken (or if not, the contract that should have been in place before the photos were taken)
 10/05/2005 04:00:44 PM · #32
The only thing that I have seen about legal things in photography:
Photographers Rights
Edit: Gordon beat me to it...

Message edited by author 2005-10-05 16:01:25.
 10/05/2005 04:00:45 PM · #33
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by MeThoS:

Exactly opposite, If there is no written agreement then you own all the rights. You would still need a property release to sell them for comercial stock. You could sell them as prints all day long. It's not as if he was trespassing when he took the photos either.


I wish I could find legal documentation to support that claim. I can't and this is why I don't assume it.


You could start here. When you take a picture you own the copyright, unless you've signed that away in writing. If someone pays you to take the pictures, and don't get exclusive rights to the images, as part of that contract - you can do what you like with them.


Gordon's always saving the day with a good link. :D
 10/05/2005 04:20:13 PM · #34
Originally posted by Gordon:

You could start here. When you take a picture you own the copyright, unless you've signed that away in writing. If someone pays you to take the pictures, and don't get exclusive rights to the images, as part of that contract - you can do what you like with them.


I understand this completely. The shortcoming in this conversation is that the photographer for hire had no contract and that is bad business. If the person or group who contracted him didn't provide a contract, he should have provided his own. Any photogrpaher for hire should avoid legal issues by having proper documentation at all times.
 10/05/2005 04:23:06 PM · #35
man that is rediculous. shots from the outside, no question are yours and you should have no worries about them. Any photo taken on public ground is yours. Since you were authorized in the building when you took the indoor photos, those are yours as well. They let you in, you shot (with permission) the result is photos that you own.

A property release would help your case for the indoor shots, cuz at this point it would be your word against the secretaries...but yea you're in the right here. That's rediculous shtttttt
 10/05/2005 04:32:11 PM · #36
Here's another consideration...

Even if we do own the photo and have the ability to do with it as we wish, would it be best to go against someone's request and use it against their will?

A photographer for hire is dependent on good word-of-mouth advertising. Using a photo that someone doesn't want you to use, regardless of the rights issue, is going to create 'bad press' possibly.

If it were me, I would remove the photo and shoot something else to use in its place.
 10/05/2005 04:34:52 PM · #37
ONLY in America! Geeshh!
 10/05/2005 04:36:10 PM · #38
Digitalknight, did you ever hear back from the church guy who freaked on you? It's pretty easy for people to blab "I'm calling my lawyer!" and whatnot but rarely do they go through with it. And rarely are they just in doing so.
 10/05/2005 04:36:11 PM · #39
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Here's another consideration...

Even if we do own the photo and have the ability to do with it as we wish, would it be best to go against someone's request and use it against their will?

A photographer for hire is dependent on good word-of-mouth advertising. Using a photo that someone doesn't want you to use, regardless of the rights issue, is going to create 'bad press' possibly.

If it were me, I would remove the photo and shoot something else to use in its place.


Given the immediate response of the moron in the first place, he won't get good press no matter what he does...
 10/05/2005 04:38:25 PM · #40
Originally posted by MeThoS:


Given the immediate response of the moron in the first place, he won't get good press no matter what he does...


That is speculation at best. There is always a high road and a low road to travel though.
 10/05/2005 04:40:05 PM · #41
arg... what a mean man, meanwhile: good photography
 10/05/2005 04:41:59 PM · #42
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by MeThoS:


Given the immediate response of the moron in the first place, he won't get good press no matter what he does...


That is speculation at best. There is always a high road and a low road to travel though.


Choose whatever road you like, just don't be the road. ;o)
 10/05/2005 04:48:49 PM · #43
I'd either take the photos down or seek legal advice immediately. (note: I have not read every post in this thread.)
 10/05/2005 04:48:50 PM · #44
I've been in a number of churches through the years, of several denominations. This man has an agenda, i.e. his son/daughter/friend that he promised to do the shots. And he is a big donner, so folks do not want to deal with him and than may include the elders and minister. Just some thoughts.
 10/05/2005 04:55:50 PM · #45
I guess the issue here is what digitalknight will do next (not that we are going to advise him in any way, just discussing). I find it hard to believe that, given what we know, he will ever receive a note from a lawyer. No lawyer that knows how to do his/her job would attempt on a case where there is no legal foundation to begin with. Well, except for those yellow page lawyers that are not certified by any board of legal specialization.

It is up to you, digitalknight, to determine when enough is enough and when you have proven your point and drop the image.

Heck, you might have an entry for the "Pride" challenge - a shot of the monitor with your web site, and you reading the lawyer's note next to it.
 10/05/2005 05:20:52 PM · #46
after reading all of this and giving it some thought I will just pull the photos for these reasons:

1- not my favorite photos anyway - if it were that first one that comes up I might fight more, I LIKE that one!
2- this is the only "bread&butter" photography client I have right now. I've shot 20 buildings and have a list of 6-8 more to shoot, and more being added all the time. I've made enough with this client to almost buy a D2X, anything that may come back on them just isn't worth it
3- I'll pick my battle, and I don't think this is the one to make a statement for photographers rights - knowwhatImean?

However, I will get property releases in the future of any interiors I shoot. I've had lawyers tell me that anything that can be viewed from a public place is open to photography -

Thanks for your input, I truly appreciate it.
 10/05/2005 05:34:30 PM · #47
America is a funny place huh.

Here we have a very different situation, this sort of threat would be a complete joke. Even the private property thing doesn't hold up - if you're shooting on private property, the owner can ask you to leave. They certainly can't make you stop displaying your images. The only things you can get in trouble for photographing are military installations and telecommunications facilities (these laws haven't been changed since WW2).

Isn't there any freedom of the press in america? What if a journalist gets a photo of something spectacularly illegal on private property, would he be able to be sued and made to not publish it?
10/05/2005 05:56:11 PM · #48
I'm with eschelar on this. I mean the guy was obviously a pedophile and he doesn't want no photographers sneaking around catching him during "playtime". Anyone as educated and intelligent as eschelar and me knows that churches are all just pedophile sanctuaries who will sue randomly for money to protect them.

Sorry to redirect the focus of your thread, but it should have been titled "I'm being sued by a pedophile!" anyway.
10/05/2005 06:12:46 PM · #49
Litigation makes baby Jesus cry.
 10/05/2005 06:15:28 PM · #50
I think Starbucks owns that church. Can you get Lattes there.

Message edited by author 2005-10-05 18:15:53.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 01:48:23 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/26/2025 01:48:23 AM EDT.