I'm being sued over a photo! - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/05/2005 06:22:21 PM · #51

Now let me add my serious opinion -

I think the pedophile- oops that slipped - church guy was way outta line and was also blowing hot air. What would he sue for? What are the damages? The MOST he could hope for is a judgement forcing you to remove the photos. Were it me, I'd call his bluff, leave them up. His next move is to have the chuech lawyer fill out a boilerplate "cease and desist" letter. You could cave at that, but you would not believe how many lawyers get people to bend based on a piece of fancy stationery, knowing they have nothing worth pursuing.

Others have said it is not worth the trouble - I can see that point, but then you would be letting this guy think he has some power that he shouldn't. It generally encourages people like that to push people around even more.

It might be interesting to find out why the guy flipped out, but may not be worth your time.

edited to add: By the way, this has nothing to do with any church or religious persuasion - there are grumpy blowhards in every facet of society.

Message edited by author 2005-10-05 18:27:05.

deapee

Kodak V803

10/05/2005 06:27:51 PM · #52

all that from a 'religious person'...sounds a bit awkward to me. I'd write him a letter and explain a few things that the bible says.

DanSig

10/05/2005 06:28:10 PM · #53

I've taken pictures of a lot of churches, an I only know about one that has copyrights on the interior, that is the Sistine chappel in the Vatican, and it's the renovator that has copyright on the artwork, you can't take pictures there without written consent :)

at least that's what I heard..

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/05/2005 07:59:47 PM · #54

Originally posted by MeThoS:

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.

If there's no written agreement, and you were "hired by" the company to go shoot the photos, then they may well own the copyrights under the "work for hire" doctrine, especially if they gave you any instructions about what kind of shots to obtain.

It may be time for you to browse the booklist at Nolo press for some self-help resources.

Patents4u

Canon EOS-40D

Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM

10/05/2005 09:28:41 PM · #55

Let me know if you get sued. A layman's viewpoint/analysis won't be of much help if that happens.

NathanWert

Canon EOS-90D

10/05/2005 09:29:31 PM · #56

I'd say keep it up.

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

10/05/2005 09:49:26 PM · #57

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by MeThoS:

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.

If there's no written agreement, and you were "hired by" the company to go shoot the photos, then they may well own the copyrights under the "work for hire" doctrine, especially if they gave you any instructions about what kind of shots to obtain.

It may be time for you to browse the booklist at Nolo press for some self-help resources.

Work for hire applies if he was actually an emlpoyee of the company. Everybody who freelances is "hired" to shoot stuff. They didn't pay him benefits or anyhthing. Work for hire would be if you fill out a w-2, freelance w-9.

burtct

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

10/05/2005 10:17:59 PM · #58

A very helpful discussion on photographer's rights and when property and model releases are required can be found here - Dan Heller - It would appear that there is no single law covering the requirement for getting releases, but is a judgement call keeping 4 competing 'rights' in balance.

If you are using them on your website as an example of your skill, then I'd say they could be construed as being for advertising and the interior shots would probably require a release, whereas the exterior ones would not (unless the building is copyrighted)

David Ey

Nikon D80

10/05/2005 10:51:56 PM · #59

Well let me say with first hand experiance, the only winners in a lawsuit are the lawyers.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/05/2005 11:12:02 PM · #60

Originally posted by David Ey:

Well let me say with first hand experiance, the only winners in a lawsuit are the lawyers.

Notaries usually do OK as well. And the haberdashers who sell suits to the suits, and the Mercedes dealers ...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/05/2005 11:43:02 PM · #61

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by David Ey:
Well let me say with first hand experiance, the only winners in a lawsuit are the lawyers.

Notaries usually do OK as well. And the haberdashers who sell suits to the suits, and the Mercedes dealers ...

Which leads to the only logical conclusion: Lawsuits are good for the economy!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/06/2005 12:02:54 AM · #62

Originally posted by kpriest:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by David Ey:
Well let me say with first hand experiance, the only winners in a lawsuit are the lawyers.

Notaries usually do OK as well. And the haberdashers who sell suits to the suits, and the Mercedes dealers ...

Which leads to the only logical conclusion: Lawsuits are good for the economy!

That segment of "the economy" already endowed with money. Around here, a "frugal" existence* runs about $26,000/year for one person, or about $54,000 for a family of four.
* That's no "cable" or like non-necessities, a studio for one person, 2BR apartment for a family of four.
For comparison, someone making the California minimum wage (increase recently vetoed by the Governator) pays (before taxes) $13,770 ($6.75 * 40hrs * 51 weeks).

blindjustice

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/06/2005 12:09:23 AM · #63

i lovew all the lawyer bashers out there. wiat till somebody takes your shit or hurts your family, then a lawyer will be your best friend.

and from people who probably work for a corporation or insurance company! There is the real evil.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/06/2005 12:18:19 AM · #64

Originally posted by burtct:

If you are using them on your website as an example of your skill, then I'd say they could be construed as being for advertising and the interior shots would probably require a release, whereas the exterior ones would not (unless the building is copyrighted)

In the same way that the moment you click the shutter any photograph you take is under copyright, any building a designer puts on paper is covered by the same sort of creative ownership rights. While it is rarely enforced the designer of your home could argue that you don't have the right to sell pictures of your own home.

10/06/2005 02:05:53 AM · #65

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Not sure what that's all about, but I will respond by asking, Since when is cable a "non-necessity"?? :-P