# Club photos copyright question..



## Chi (Dec 5, 2015)

Hi folk's I need a little advice please..

I went to a Latin dance party in  public place recently and casually took a whole set of photos (around 250) of very willing individuals and dancing couples..

The next day I edited all the images and created a watermarked online album and shared it with people at the party in case anyone wanted to order prints.

I was then contacted by the host of the night who asked me to remove my watermark from every single photo.. add his own watermark and then send him all the images for nothing..

Well obviously I told him he was off his rocker and declined instead offering if he wanted he could by the whole set and use them for his Facebook page and party night promotions etc.

He was not interested in giving me asingle penny for anything and has now said that that if I use of show any of my photos anywhere it would be 'infringement of his copyright'.

What the hell! How on earth does he have any kind of copyright over my images?

What's the legal situation here please?

Cheers


----------



## weltweit (Dec 5, 2015)

I think if the event was in a public place, and or that you took the pictures standing in a public place then you have the copyright for your images.


----------



## Chi (Dec 5, 2015)

Just found this:

Q: Who owns the copyright in a photograph once it is taken?

In general, when the shutter is released, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright. An exception is when the image falls into the “work-made-for-hire”(also known as “work for hire”) category. A work-made-for-hire relationship is created in two situations: (1) the photographer is an employee hired to take photographs for the employer—an example would be a photojournalist who is an employee of a newspaper but not a wedding or portrait photographer who is hired for one event; or (2) the photographer is hired to provide photographs for collective works or compilations and signs a written agreement that specifically states that the work is to be considered a work made for hire. Therefore, freelance photographers are subjected to work-for-hire status only when they agree to it contractually.

I was not hired, there was no agreement or contract.. I was among few others taking photos but he's just trying to get hold of mine because they were professionally shot and edited.


----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 5, 2015)

paging editor - what do you think ?

I feel that a) the promotor Chi mentions is trying to pull a fast one and should be told to take a hike.
and b) The copyright in the images does belong to Chi


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 5, 2015)

Chi you took the pictures, you were not commissioned to take them: the (c) belongs to you.


----------



## Sirena (Dec 5, 2015)

The host is wrong.  Ignore him.  Tell him he can't use your pictures without your permission.

(ps I work in copyright)


----------



## keybored (Dec 5, 2015)

Is a nightclub classed as a "public place" for copyright reasons though? It's private property that's open to the public. I'm not sure where the line is drawn.

Though in either case I doubt he's entitled to just have all your photos for nothing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 5, 2015)

keybored said:


> Is a nightclub classed as a "public place" for copyright reasons though? It's private property that's open to the public. I'm not sure where the line is drawn.


don't matter, doesn't affect copyright


----------



## Chi (Dec 5, 2015)

_"Is a nightclub classed as a "public place" for copyright reasons though? It's private property that's open to the public. I'm not sure where the line is drawn."_

It was not a nightclub.. it's just a big pub that has a large dance floor space upstairs and people just go there to party..


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 5, 2015)

Chi said:


> _"Is a nightclub classed as a "public place" for copyright reasons though? It's private property that's open to the public. I'm not sure where the line is drawn."_
> 
> It was not a nightclub.. it's just a big pub that has a large dance floor space upstairs and people just go there to party..


anyway (c) associated with creation of work not location of work


----------



## editor (Dec 5, 2015)

keybored said:


> Is a nightclub classed as a "public place" for copyright reasons though? It's private property that's open to the public. I'm not sure where the line is drawn.


Makes no odds at all. The copyright belongs to the photographer. If the club owner wants to use the photos, then he should pay for them.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 5, 2015)

Chi said:


> Hi folk's I need a little advice please..
> 
> I went to a Latin dance party in  public place recently and casually took a whole set of photos (around 250) of very willing individuals and dancing couples..
> 
> ...


I'd tell the twat to shove it. If he bangs on about copyright again, you tell him you'll see him in court. Even if this is more than a baseless attempt to extort your photos from you, the moment he gets a sniff of what it's going to cost him to go after you in court, he'll back off so fast there will be skidmarks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 5, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I think if the event was in a public place, and or that you took the pictures standing in a public place then you have the copyright for your images.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


>


Why the   that is broadly right no?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 5, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Why the   that is broadly right no?


no


----------



## weltweit (Dec 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> no


The only case where you are photographing from a public place, where you won't have copyright of the resulting images, is if you are contracted to an employer to produce images for them!


----------



## Chi (Dec 5, 2015)

Thank you all for the numerous comment's and suggestions.


----------



## Chi (Dec 5, 2015)

weltweit said:


> The only case where you are photographing from a public place, where you won't have copyright of the resulting images, is if you are contracted to an employer to produce images for them!



I don't think that's quite correct.. I was hired to shoot the America's Cup Yacht Race by one of the main sponsors Jaguar which was done from their own provided speedboat yet I still own full copyright of all the images which they
happily acknowledged and paid me for.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 5, 2015)

Chi said:


> I don't think that's quite correct.. I was hired to shoot the America's Cup Yacht Race by one of the main sponsors Jaguar which was done from their own provided speedboat yet I still own full copyright of all the images which they
> happily acknowledged and paid me for.


I would have thought that depends on the agreement you had with them.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 5, 2015)

Chi said:


> I don't think that's quite correct.. I was hired to shoot the America's Cup Yacht Race by one of the main sponsors Jaguar which was done from their own provided speedboat yet I still own full copyright of all the images which they
> happily acknowledged and paid me for.


Because - as I think you pointed out in your second post - you hadn't explicitly signed over your copyright to your client. Which was either a smart move on your part, or a cockup on theirs 

I think the point about weltweit's observation is that, even if it isn't incorrect, it's irrelevant.


----------



## editor (Dec 5, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I think if the event was in a public place, and or that you took the pictures standing in a public place then you have the copyright for your images.


It doesn't matter where you're standing: unless you have signed away your rights beforehand, the copyright remains yours and no one else's.


----------



## RoyReed (Dec 5, 2015)

The only possible exception to the OP owning the copyright is if the terms of entry to the club specifically state that any photographs taken on the premises are the property of the club. I know that this has happened to some rock photographers when photographing bands.


----------



## editor (Dec 5, 2015)

RoyReed said:


> The only possible exception to the OP owning the copyright is if the terms of entry to the club specifically state that any photographs taken on the premises are the property of the club. I know that this has happened to some rock photographers when photographing bands.


Such a claim would have a very tenuous grip on the law, unless the photographer had to sit down and sign a specific form giving away all rights before entry. The photographer always owns copyright unless they have specifically signed away their rights.



> For a photographer, when you press the shutter release you are making a photo and gaining copyright to that photo at the same time. You don’t have to declare copyright or file any paperwork. It is yours to keep until you explicitly give it away or you die (copyright expires after you, the duration in the U.S. is the author’s lifetime plus 70 years).
> How do I copyright my photos?


----------



## existentialist (Dec 5, 2015)

editor said:


> Such a claim would have a very tenuous grip on the law, unless the photographer had to sit down and sign a specific form giving away all rights before entry. The photographer always owns copyright unless they have specifically signed away their rights.


It sounds a bit like those disclaimer notices which say you enter premises/car parks "at your own risk" - essentially, it's legally unenforceable.


----------



## RoyReed (Dec 5, 2015)

In this instance I think you're right and the copyright belongs to the OP (I did say the only possible exception). But Google 'photography copyright rights grab' to see some examples of what I mean.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 5, 2015)

RoyReed said:


> In this instance I think you're right and the copyright belongs to the OP (I did say the only possible exception). But Google 'photography copyright rights grab' to see some examples of what I mean.


Yeah, there's always going to be cunts determined to bend the (appearance of the) law to suit their own purposes.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 5, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Because - as I think you pointed out in your second post - you hadn't explicitly signed over your copyright to your client. Which was either a smart move on your part, or a cockup on theirs
> 
> I think the point about weltweit's observation is that, even if it isn't incorrect, it's irrelevant.


It's standard to keep copyright but assign rights to the client to use the images, probably exclusive ones if it's work for hire. It would be rare to sign away all rights because that would stop you using the shots in a portfolio.


----------



## Chi (Dec 6, 2015)

_"Because - as I think you pointed out in your second post - you hadn't explicitly signed over your copyright to your client. Which was either a smart move on your part, or a cockup on theirs "_

I did not have any arrangement with anyone.. I just walked in off the street with friends the same as everyone else there out for a good night. I just happened to have my camera with me as always
and being the photo-holic that I am I always end up taking photos especially of dancers.. only on leaving at the end of the night did I take the organisers email saying I'll send him a link to the album later.

That's the entirety of any communication I had with this individual.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 6, 2015)

Chi said:


> _"Because - as I think you pointed out in your second post - you hadn't explicitly signed over your copyright to your client. Which was either a smart move on your part, or a cockup on theirs "_
> 
> I did not have any arrangement with anyone.. I just walked in off the street with friends the same as everyone else there out for a good night. I just happened to have my camera with me as always
> and being the photo-holic that I am I always end up taking photos especially of dancers.. only on leaving at the end of the night did I take the organisers email saying I'll send him a link to the album later.
> ...


Good. He can get to fuck, then. 

I hope you can find it in yourself to relish just a little the process of telling him to get to fuck. You might even like to ice the cake a little by inviting him to select a couple that you'll grant limited release to him to use...WITH your watermark


----------



## Mr Smin (Dec 6, 2015)

Chi said:


> I don't think that's quite correct.. I was hired to shoot the America's Cup Yacht Race by one of the main sponsors Jaguar which was done from their own provided speedboat yet I still own full copyright of all the images which they
> happily acknowledged and paid me for.


As a true professional I pilot my own speedboat while taking photos at the same time.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 6, 2015)

RoyReed said:


> The only possible exception to the OP owning the copyright is if the terms of entry to the club specifically state that any photographs taken on the premises are the property of the club. I know that this has happened to some rock photographers when photographing bands.



There is a very legitimate claim to copyright from the people photographed. If you claimed your own image was the most important thing in the photograph, or your art, or your club's 'image' etc etc etc. This is why model release forms exist.

In the case of the OP, if they are not making profit from the photographs, then there is little point in anyone chasing copyright ownership. If they are selling images of people enjoying a night in a famous, or branded club, then they are profiting from the investment made by the club owners. The club owners could make a very viable claim for their share of the cash.

e.g. People have paid €1,000 for a VIP table with champagne to be seen at a prestigious nightclub. If you (as the photographer) sell your photographs to them with an obvious "this is your night out in THIS very expensive nightclub called 'fabuloso fabulous spunking nightclib Ibiza dot com) then the owners of the club would rightfully make a claim after their investment, and would probably only allow Two professional photographers to operate within their premises on strict terms.

In practice, everyone has a smartphone and everyone these days is the best photographer and owns all rights to their untold fame and wealth.


----------



## mhendo (Dec 6, 2015)

RoyReed said:


> The only possible exception to the OP owning the copyright is if the terms of entry to the club specifically state that any photographs taken on the premises are the property of the club. I know that this has happened to some rock photographers when photographing bands.


Here in the US, a private property owner can make rules preventing photography, and can make you leave the property if you show an inclination to break those rules. But if you were still able to rattle off some shots, it is very unlikely he could make any claim on the contents of the images, unless you had explicitly signed an agreement beforehand giving him such a claim. As others have suggested, simply posting a sign laying claim to any images taken on the premises would almost certainly not be legally sufficient.



Stanley Edwards said:


> There is a very legitimate claim to copyright from the people photographed. If you claimed your own image was the most important thing in the photograph, or your art, or your club's 'image' etc etc etc. This is why model release forms exist.


Not in the United States, unless the image was going to be used for advertising purposes or some other directly commercial purpose. Photographs taken for editorial or news or personal use do not require model releases, and model releases are not (at least in the US) about copyright anyway. Releases and copyright ownership are two separate issues.

I believe, however, that UK law might be a bit different in terms of model releases. If my reading on the subject is correct, there is no law in the UK that requires model releases, even for commercial use of a likeness. I remember Urban member *detective-boy* pointing out this lack of protection in UK law a few years back, and at the time I looked it up an it appeared to be true, but i am not as familiar with UK copyright law as i am with the US law.


Stanley Edwards said:


> In the case of the OP, if they are not making profit from the photographs, then there is little point in anyone chasing copyright ownership. If they are selling images of people enjoying a night in a famous, or branded club, then they are profiting from the investment made by the club owners. The club owners could make a very viable claim for their share of the cash.
> 
> e.g. People have paid €1,000 for a VIP table with champagne to be seen at a prestigious nightclub. If you (as the photographer) sell your photographs to them with an obvious "this is your night out in THIS very expensive nightclub called 'fabuloso fabulous spunking nightclib Ibiza dot com) then the owners of the club would rightfully make a claim after their investment, and would probably only allow Two professional photographers to operate within their premises on strict terms.


There are a couple of issues here.

First, in the US at least, this sort of indirect profiting is irrelevant to the issue of copyright. It doesn't matter who has created a particular situation, or how they have done it. If i have photos of that situation that i took myself, then, unless it was explicitly done under a work-for-hire agreement, i own the copyright and i do not owe anything to the people who paid to host the shindig. It doesn't matter if they've spend a million quid to create the party, or if guests have spend five grand a head; my photos are still my photos. You are right that they, as the people in charge of the property, could refuse me access, but once they have allowed me to take photos, they have no claim on the profits unless they have a specific contract with the photographer.

Second, in the United States at least, there often IS, in fact, a point of pursuing copyright claims even if the person who has nicked your images has not deprived you of any income. You automatically own the copyright to any image that you create, but if you actually register your copyright with the US Copyright Office, that actually gives you more leverage if you want to sue someone who uses your images without permission.

If you do NOT register copyright, you can sue a copyright infringer, but the only monetary claim you can make is for actual damages, i.e., the amount of money that you lost as a result of the infringement. For a relatively small and local event liker the one described in the OP, this is unlikely to be a lot of money. 

But if you DO register your copyright, you can also sue for statutory damages, which can be awarded in an amount ranging from $750 - 30,000 per infringement. That is, if you register your copyright, and someone nicks your images, you can sue them and recover a bunch of money even if their theft did not actually deprive you of income. Furthermore, if the court finds that their infringement was "willful" (that is, if they knew what they were doing was wrong, and did it anyway), the court has discretion to up the damages amount, up to a maximum of $150,000 per infringement.

Again, as i said earlier, i'm not sure if this works in the same way in the UK.


----------



## cybertect (Dec 6, 2015)

Formal Copyright registration does not exist in the UK.

Aside from that, the legal position in the UK is broadly the same, though. There are no 'personality rights' such as exist in some other jurisdictions (notably Hungary and France).

In either case they would have no bearing on any copyright held by the promoter.


----------



## mhendo (Dec 6, 2015)

cybertect said:


> Formal Copyright registration does not exist in the UK.


So, does UK copyright law allow for statutory damages in cases of infringement, as allowed in the US when a work is registered? Or can you only sue for actual damages?


----------



## cybertect (Dec 7, 2015)

mhendo said:


> So, does UK copyright law allow for statutory damages in cases of infringement, as allowed in the US when a work is registered? Or can you only sue for actual damages?



You can sue for recovery of actual losses and costs only, though the court may make an additional award if it was a blatant infringement, such as removing a watermark.

It's a source of complaints that papers like the Daily Mail will regularly use photos without permission and then suffer no great penalty for doing so if they get caught out.


----------



## mhendo (Dec 7, 2015)

Yeah, i think that's fucked up. 

If there is no possibility of statutory damages, it means that there is effectively little or no risk in nicking someone else's pictures. This sort of system tilts things (even further) in favor of media outlets and other organizations with deep pockets, because they know that very few individuals are likely to pursue a lawsuit when all they could win is actual losses plus costs. Especially since the big guys usually already have in-house counsel or lawyers on retainer to deal with this sort of thing.

A statutory damages system at least has the advantage of sometimes forcing the big guys to pay out significant sums of money, especially since copyright violation (at least in the US) is a strict liability offense, meaning that you only have to prove that they used your image without authorization, and not that they intentionally defrauded you. And if you _*can*_ prove that their use was willful, you can, as i said above, really score big, especially since it would be rather hard for large media organizations, which deal with copyright issues every day, to argue that they nicked your image inadvertently.


----------



## editor (Dec 7, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> There is a very legitimate claim to copyright from the people photographed. If you claimed your own image was the most important thing in the photograph, or your art, or your club's 'image' etc etc etc. This is why model release forms exist.


Err, no. You don't have any claim to another photographer's copyright just because your face appears in the picture. However, if the work is being used commercially then a model release form should be signed.. 


> Exhibiting prints of street photographs containing people, or displaying photographs online on sites such as Facebook or Flickr, for artistic purposes, would not generally require permission in the UK, although there could be issues under the Data Protection Act.
> 
> Do street photographers need to get a signed model-release form? Here’s some handy legal guidance  - Amateur Photographer





> Photographers are free to take photos of people in public places commercially or non-commercially and there's no criminal law in the UK that prevents this. However, if you'd like to shoot commercially then a model release form, and in some cases a building release form, will have to be sought to enable you to publish or sell images.
> http://www.paulreynolds.com/articles/photography_and_law/Photography And The Law.pdf


----------



## sim667 (Dec 7, 2015)

I think there are 3 things that seem to apply here.

1. The host does not own the copyright, they are your images - unless you've signed away your rights, which reading the thread doesn't seem to have been the case.

2. You do not need model release forms, you have taken incidental photographs, that are not being sold/used to commercially promote a product/experience..... They are your images that you are selling and using to promote you as a photographer.

3. Location release form - is the only bit I'm a little woolly about, you definately do not have to sign one for the host's benefit, but there may be an issue with the venue. - That said, the venue owner/manager isn't likely to know or care, and thinking about all the events I've done, and weddings that I've known people to work on, I'm sure there are never location release forms involved.

I would suggest a copy of Beyond the Lens is a must have for all photographers when it comes to reference for the photographic business

Overview


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 9, 2015)

editor said:


> Err, no. You don't have any claim to another photographer's copyright just because your face appears in the picture. However, if the work is being used commercially then a model release form should be signed..



I'm not so sure about this. If someone valued the originality of their personl image as much as I value the originality of my paintings, or photographs, then I would be happy to hand over/share copyright. If someone copied my paintings in a public space (many are) and profited from it without giving me my share I would be  bit pissed.

I think ultimately in 9 out of 10 cases Copyright issues are about money and a civil case for those chasing money. The lawyers are the only winers.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 9, 2015)

You might want to grant them rights but you wouldn't have to.

If someone took a picture just of your painting and sold it as a print then that _would_ be a copyright breach. If they took a picture of a city square where it so happened there was somebody selling paintings, that wouldn't.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 10, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You might want to grant them rights but you wouldn't have to.
> 
> If someone took a picture just of your painting and sold it as a print then that _would_ be a copyright breach. If they took a picture of a city square where it so happened there was somebody selling paintings, that wouldn't.



But, what if they took a picture of an individual in a public place and profited.

e.g. Those postcards you see of London punks. Would the individuals (who are undoubtedly the subject of the photograph and their own creative image) be entitled to anything? Personally, I think they would have a good case unless they had signed a model release, or other contract.

Nobody is really concerned about Copyright unless money is involved. I am more than happy for the Thousands of tourists to photograph me, me sketching, my sketches, my huge murals get photographed over a Hundred times a day. Great! Post them wherever you like - all good for me. I wouldn't be that bothered if a painting, or sketch turned up on a postcard reproduction. Not a lot of money involved, but surely I would have a claim to Copyright as creator, or originator of the image that is selling?

As far as the OP is concerned: Both parties want to make money. If it wasn't for the event organiser's time, money and effort, then the OP wouldn't have found a money making opportunity. Talk about profit share and forget stupid, greedy, squabbles about Copyright. Copyright really wasn't anything non-professional photographers knew about before the internet. They still don't. Nor does the law to a large extent. The law is having to evolve to accomodate internet publishing. It isn't really clear cut.

Another thing is websites that seem to misunderstand the difference between Copyright and your rights to photograph in a public space. This is clouding the issue even more. Just because you have the right to photograph in a public space (or, private space for that matter) doesn't mean you have the right to profit from those photographs.


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> But, what if they took a picture of an individual in a public place and profited.
> 
> e.g. Those postcards you see of London punks. Would the individuals (who are undoubtedly the subject of the photograph and their own creative image) be entitled to anything? Personally, I think they would have a good case unless they had signed a model release, or other contract.


That's already been clarified several times. You need a model release form for commercial exploitation but at NO point does the copyright ever go a photographer's subject just because they happen to be in the picture.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 10, 2015)

You don't even need a model release form in the UK.


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You don't even need a model release form in the UK.


It's a legally grey area, but I'd always recommend using one for some commercial circumstances (but not street scenes). 

RPS launches Model Release Form


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 12, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You don't even need a model release form in the UK.



You don't need a model release form, but if someone with better legal representation, or more money than you challenges, you will lose. Regardless of whether you took the photograph on the street, or in a studio.

Editor is wrong here.

'Street scenes' are a very different thing to an individual's image. So, perhaps Editor isn't that wrong.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 12, 2015)

No, you don't need a model release form. And you have no rights to your own likeness. All in the UK anyway. Different in France, for instance.

All you can be done for is taking a photo of someone and misrepresenting them with it - Stanley Edwards drinks Coke etc - which is basically libel or defamation rather than anything copyright related. _That's_ why release forms exist for stock photo models etc, so you can do as you like without getting in trouble.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> You don't need a model release form, but if someone with better legal representation, or more money than you challenges, you will lose. Regardless of whether you took the photograph on the street, or in a studio.
> 
> Editor is wrong here.
> 
> 'Street scenes' are a very different thing to an individual's image. So, perhaps Editor isn't that wrong.


Editor isn't wrong at all. And no matter how much you keep repeating it, being the subject of a photo does not grant you copyright. That always remains with the photographer unless he has been hired and agreed to hand over copyright to the person commissioning the shots. As for model release forms, see mauvais's post above.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 13, 2015)

editor said:


> Editor isn't wrong at all. And no matter how much you keep repeating it, being the subject of a photo does not grant you copyright. That always remains with the photographer unless he has been hired and agreed to hand over copyright to the person commissioning the shots. As for model release forms, see mauvais's post above.



Copyright is automatically granted to the photographer. Every single photograph you take is your Copyright. However, it is up to you to protect your Copyright. Copyright is also granted automatically to any artist. It is up to the artist to protect their right. If someone considers their own image to be their own work of art they can very legitimately chase their rights through the civil courts.

Model release forms recognise that the model has entered into an agreement with the photographer which allows the photographer to do what they like with the images produced. For profit, or any other use. Model release forms effectively recognise that the model has signed away any claim to Copyright.


----------



## editor (Dec 13, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Copyright is automatically granted to the photographer. Every single photograph you take is your Copyright. However, it is up to you to protect your Copyright. Copyright is also granted automatically to any artist. It is up to the artist to protect their right. If someone considers their own image to be their own work of art they can very legitimately chase their rights through the civil courts.
> 
> Model release forms recognise that the model has entered into an agreement with the photographer which allows the photographer to do what they like with the images produced. For profit, or any other use. Model release forms effectively recognise that the model has signed away any claim to Copyright.


That's somewhat odds with your earlier claim: "There is a very legitimate claim to copyright from the people photographed. If you claimed your own image was the most important thing in the photograph, or your art, or your club's 'image' etc etc etc."

There is no 'legitimate claim' in such circumstances. None.


----------



## mhendo (Dec 13, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Copyright is automatically granted to the photographer. Every single photograph you take is your Copyright. However, it is up to you to protect your Copyright. Copyright is also granted automatically to any artist. It is up to the artist to protect their right. If someone considers their own image to be their own work of art they can very legitimately chase their rights through the civil courts.
> 
> Model release forms recognise that the model has entered into an agreement with the photographer which allows the photographer to do what they like with the images produced. For profit, or any other use. Model release forms effectively recognise that the model has signed away any claim to Copyright.


Wrong, on both paragraphs.

Copyright is designed to protect expression and encourage innovation in the field of intellectual and creative work. The simple fact of your own appearance, your own image, is not something covered by copyright. In US law, in fact, the list of things covered by copyright is actually provided, right there in Title 17 of the US Code:





> § 102 . Subject matter of copyright: In general
> 
> (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
> 
> ...


The United Kingdom has a similar, although somewhat less exhaustive, set of criteria:​


> (1)Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work—
> 
> (a)original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
> 
> ...


​Note, in particular, that in the United States, an item that qualifies for copyright protection has to be "fixed in any tangible medium of expression." That is, you could have the greatest idea or story or song or photography idea or whatever, but it does not qualify for copyright protection until you write it down or put it on a hard drive or take a picture. I am not aware of a human being's own face or appearance, by itself, ever qualifying for copyright protections in the United States, and i do not believe that any court in the land would rule that a person's own image, as embodied in their own appearance, qualifies for copyright. I don't believe that UK courts would rule much, if any, differently.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, i'd be interested to see it.

As for a model release, a model release does NOT sign away a claim to copyright, because you can't sign away something that you never had. A model release is a consent form that allows the copyright holder (the photographer) to use the image for a particular set of purposes. Signing or not signing a model release has no effect whatsoever on the photographer's copyright, and does not in any way restrict what the photographer can do with the image in terms of non-commercial use.

And, as others have noted, this distinction between commercial and non-commercial use applies in the US, but is not written into UK law. You don't have to get a model release in the UK, although most professional photographers recommend it if you want to sell your work commercially, because most commercial image buyers (stock photo agencies, advertising agencies, etc.) will not purchase your images unless they come with model releases for any recognizable people in the image.

Also, to the extent that your image might be legally protected in the UK, the reasons (as clearly explained in the RPS model release form linked by the editor) have almost nothing to do with copyright. Rather, the reasons rest on laws related to personal data protection, breach of confidence, and the principle of contract. Even in those cases, the copyright remains wholly and solely with the photographer, even if the law _*might*_ (and in most cases, it wouldn't) prevent publication of the images on other grounds.

The only time that the instructions for the release form discuss copyright is in the specific case of "a person commissioning a photograph for private and domestic purposes." That is, if you explicitly and specifically pay a photographer to come to your house and take a picture of you, for your own private and domestic purposes, you have a right to demand that the photographer NOT issue any public copies of the photograph. But that does not apply to someone taking a picture of you in a public place.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 13, 2015)

If you look at most template model release forms out there, including the one linked to above, they're basically contracts, which is a sensible thing to have (for both model and photographer—if you agree to model for a shoot for a tenner for a portfolio and the photographer then sells the pics, if you have nothing in writing you won't have much of a case to say "hang on that's not what I agreed to").


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 14, 2015)

Photography and Copyright Law

*After the photo is taken, however, the photographer should be concerned with the person’s right of publicity. You violate a person’s right of publicity when, without permission, you use a photo of a person for your own benefit. The “editorial” use of a photo is not considered a use of the person’s image for your own benefit. “Commercial” use is different because the use benefits the photographer, so you need the person’s consent to use their image. If you get a model release signed by the subject, you are free to use the image commercially, i.e., for advertising.*
*
---------------
*
That is just one example from a quick Google search. In my own words my understanding is:

If a persons image is the main subject of a photograph, and is effectively the 'commercial value' of the photograph, they can make a claim.

This applies to people, peoples own design T-shirt, or costume (e.g.), company branding, graphic design etc etc etc.

Your ownership of Copyright does not always give you sole rights to profit. If anyone, or any organisation thinks their creativity is being used for profit, they can make a claim. This is entirely different to any privacy, or slander law.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 14, 2015)

Nope. For a start that relates to the US, which noone seems to be talking about.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 14, 2015)

Even in the US, it's state, not federal.

Personality rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See e.g. that in Greece, you're not allowed to take photos of people in public without consent. As I said before, in France you also have some protection.

Note that the UK does not feature.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 14, 2015)

If you lot want to doubt the veracity of a highly respected, specialised, international Copyright lawyer with years of experience, then you aren't going to listen to an internet bum like Stanley Edwards.

US law is very much equal to UK law. The only difference is it costs much more to protect your rights in the US.

The link to Wiki Mauvais is using has no relevance to the link I used.

Here is a picture of a dog dressed up as a pilgrim in Santiago de Compostela.







The guy uses the dog to pose for photos for tourists at a suggested donation of €1 a time. If you took the photo and decided to print postcard reproductions is the Copyright and profit all yours, or do you recognise the dog's owner's rights as the creator of the image?

Personally, I wouldn't bother with the photo, never mind postcards, but if I did, I would be more than happy to recognise, and pay the creator of the image, and so would the law.

Exactly the same applies to people and art created by other people. You wouldn't be happy if someone copied one of your photographs for commercial gain, so what makes you think you can steal other peoples' creativity for your own profit?


----------



## mauvais (Dec 14, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> US law is very much equal to UK law.


Yes, Stanley. Yes it is.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 14, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Yes, Stanley. Yes it is.



Yes. It is in the case of Copyright. Copyright needs to be recognised internationally in this day and age.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 14, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Yes. It is in the case of Copyright. Copyright needs to be recognised internationally in this day and age.


For which we have the Berne Convention.

Or more verbosely, The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

Not, I understand, The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works And Yer Face.


----------



## editor (Dec 14, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> If you lot want to doubt the veracity of a highly respected, specialised, international Copyright lawyer with years of experience, then you aren't going to listen to an internet bum like Stanley Edwards.
> 
> US law is very much equal to UK law. The only difference is it costs much more to protect your rights in the US.
> 
> ...


You seem awfully confused about copyright law.


----------



## mhendo (Dec 14, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Here is a picture of a dog dressed up as a pilgrim in Santiago de Compostela.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are a few issues going on here and, consistent with your performance so far in this thread, you are bollixing them up completely.

First, you ask if i am willing to "recognise the dog's owner's rights as the creator of the image." This is an invalid question, because if i take a picture of the dog, the dog's owner is not, in fact, the creator of the image. I am. 

The dog's owner might have washed and ironed the charming little doggie outfit, and the dog's owner might have given the dog a nice bath, and then dressed him up and even made him sit there in a charming pose. But if i'm the one who looks through the viewfinder and composes the shot and clicks the shutter, then i'm the one who took the image, and i'm the one who can claim copyright. Putting clothes on something is not, by itself, an act of creative expression recognized by copyright law, in the US, the UK, or under the Berne Convention.

As to your second paragraph, in a case like this i would be happy to pay the dog's owner his suggested donation of €1. But this has nothing at all to do with copyright, or with intellectual property more generally. It has to do with the formal legal procedure known as "Not being a complete twat."

If that dog is in a public place, i have the right to take as many pictures as i want without paying anyone a dime. But i would give the guy his 1 euro, because i recognize that he has gone to some effort in order to provide something charming for me to photograph. And i think that it would be sort of a dick move to take the picture without giving the donation. It might even result in some verbal or even physical abuse from the dog owner, depending on his temperament. But none of that is about copyright.

In your last paragraph, you mention "art created by other people," and seem to put the nattily-dressed pooch into this category. But, in the US at least, this would not work, because as i noted earlier, to be eligible for copyright, a piece of art has to be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. This does not apply to a dog in a suit sitting on a step. Also, even if you actually created a proper artwork, like a sculpture, this poses problems for your argument as well, because (in the US at least) a photograph of a three-dimensional artwork such as a sculpture is considered, for copyright purposes, to be a new creative work. This is because the act of photography itself, when applied to three-dimensional images, is a creative act, involving decisions about angle and lighting and lens choice. Changing these things when shooting a sculpture can have a big impact on how the sculpture appears in the photo.

The one area where your argument would hold is in the case of "slavish" or "mere" copies of two-dimensional artwork like paintings and photographs. That is, if you produce a painting, and i take a photograph of the painting in an effort to create as accurate a reproduction as possible, then i cannot claim copyright in my photo, because it lacks the creative spark that copyright is designed to protect. I have probably, in this case, also violated your copyright.

Note that this is a rather grey area, and the exact outcome depends on exactly how one photographs the artwork, and how significant the artwork is within the photograph. For example, if you stick your artwork on a stand in Hyde Park, and i take a picture of the park that also happens to have your artwork in it, then i probably have not violated your copyright, and i also hold copyright in my own photograph because it required creative effort to compose and shoot the picture. There is very little clear legal precedent in cases like this. 

Most of these observations are based on the US case. There may be UK peculiarities or protections of which i am unaware.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 15, 2015)

mhendo said:


> There are a few issues going on here and, consistent with your performance so far in this thread, you are bollixing them up completely.
> 
> First, you ask if i am willing to "recognise the dog's owner's rights as the creator of the image." This is an invalid question, because if i take a picture of the dog, the dog's owner is not, in fact, the creator of the image. I am.
> 
> ...




I disagree. People seem to be confusing their right to photograph with rights to profit. Copyright is simply about protecting reproduction rights. Anyone has the right to photograph the dog. I would argue that they do not have the right to produce prints, or postcards for profit without the consent of the creator of the outfit (the dogs owner) and the 'art' in the medium it is being expressed. The dog in  pilgrims outfit was not your idea. Not your creation. By stealing the image with your camera for commercial use you are violating Copyright of the artist/creator.

Costumes are recognised as Copyright if the costume is an original creation, or has commercial value within the photograph. Clothing cannot be copyrighted if it does not carry a logo, or trademark, or unique design. But, a costume does have Copyright protection. I would also argue that the dog in costume is actually a 'fixed expression in a tangible medium' - the costume has a contextual relationship to a very permanent environment.


----------



## mhendo (Dec 15, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> By stealing the image with your camera for commercial use you are violating Copyright of the artist/creator.


Here is the crux of your misunderstanding.

You have every right to believe, in terms of morals and principles and ethics, that a photographer should not profit from the dog's image without sharing that profit with the dog's owner. Whether i agree with you on that or not, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion on the matter.

But copyright is a legal term, with specific and rather clearly articulated legal limitations and definitions. Without a government and a legal mechanism to create and protect it, copyright essentially does not exist and is not enforceable. And it is here that you are wrong. While you might disagree with the idea of profiting from the dog owner's little tableau, and you are entitled to your beliefs and your preferences on this matter, the copyright laws of the United States and of the United Kingdom do not support your preferences here.

I would also like to see some evidence for your assertion that "Costumes are recognised as Copyright if the costume is an original creation, or has commercial value within the photograph." I am willing to concede, because i am not so familiar with UK law, that you might be correct for the UK. But you are incorrect for the United States.

Title 17 of the US Code, in determining eligibility for copyright protection of "pictorial, graphical and sculptural works," draws a clear distinction between those works and what the law refers to as "useful articles." 





> A “useful article” is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. An article that is normally a part of a useful article is considered a “useful article”.


Because copyright is designed to protect creative expression in the interest not only of the authors of such work, but of the public as a whole, the government recognizes that allowing all utilitarian objects to be the subject of copyright would effectively stifle innovation. As the US Congress noted in a 1976 report on the subject:





> [A]lthough the shape of an industrial
> product may be aesthetically satisfying and
> valuable,the Committee's intention is not to
> offer it copyright protection under the bill.
> ...


This is the sort of logic that courts in the United States have consistently applied in cases regarding the copyright protections afforded to clothing and costumes. There were a number of legal rulings in the 1980s where clothing and costumes were explicitly ruled to be "useful articles" because, even if they exhibited artistic qualities, their primary purpose was utilitarian. There were a few borderline cases, where some pieces of clothing were deemed fanciful and recognizable enough to qualify as a pictorial, graphic or sculptural work deserving of copyright. One was the creation of a "slipper depicting a bear's foot."

What Congress meant, when it talked about the "separable" elements, is that some aspects of costumes or clothing might be protected by copyright if, when separated from the clothing, they constitute an independent  work of art. So, for example, fabric designs (but not simply colors) are protected by copyright. If you produced a fabric with a new and unique design, using a specific pattern of shapes and color, you would be protected by copyright. But if you used that fabric to make a jacket, you still don't get copyright protection for the jacket, because it is defined as a "useful article." Going even further, if i designed the cloth, and you created the jacket, the only person protected by copyright, under US law, would be me, because only the cloth qualifies as a "pictorial, graphic, [or] sculptural work" under US copyright law. The jacket does not.

The Library of Congress, which has the authority to issue policy decisions about how US copyright law will be applied, confirmed all of this in a 1991 decision (PDF document), which is where most of my quotations in this post come from. In this decision, based on an examination of the law, of prior court decisions, and of the public interest in the workings of copyright, the Library of Congress decided that masks would NOT be treated as useful articles, and would therefore be subject to copyright protection. They decided also that clothing, including costumes, would remain as useful articles, and therefore not subject to copyright protection, unless they met the test of separability, discussed above. Here is the policy summary from the document:


> The examining practices with respect
> to masks will not treat masks as useful
> articles, but will instead determine
> registrability on the existence of
> ...


As you can see, not even all masks will qualify. A purely utilitarian mask, without a minimum level of pictorial and/or sculptural qualities, would still not be protected by copyright or eligible for registration.

It is worth noting that, even if clothing is not generally protected by copyright, it can be, and often is, protected by patents and trademarks. But that's a different area than the one we are talking about, and it's also something that i don't feel qualified to talk about with any real confidence. It also would not apply in the case of your guy with a dog.

Once again, i offer the caveat that this is the US case only. You might be right for the UK, but your discussion of this case so far has been rather long on personal opinion and rather short on facts and evidence as it pertains to copyright law.

As for your argument that "the dog in costume is actually a 'fixed expression in a tangible medium'," there is almost certainly no court in the United States that would agree with you. I can't speak for Britain.

That would not, of course, prevent you from filing a lawsuit. One of the great [note: irony] things about the American legal system is that you can sue just about anyone for just about anything. The question, though, is whether you actually have a semblance of a case, or will be thrown (or laughed) straight out of court. But you could definitely sue.

Who knows? You might even win. With so many American jurisdictions using elected judges, we have more than our fair share of morons sitting on the bench, and a cursory examination of the American justice system will show you that just about anything is possible.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 15, 2015)

Yep. Knew I was right.

Let the man who spotted the opportunity to make good business continue. His idea realised. Just because you have a nice camera and know how to press the shutter release button does not mean you have a right to profit from his work.

Very nice guy BTW. His original dog died after 13 years. Very happy dogs - they really enjoy the attention.

He won his court case.


----------



## mhendo (Dec 15, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Yep. Knew I was right.


Apparently, in addition to being unaware of the meaning of copyright, you are also unaware of the meaning of "right."


Stanley Edwards said:


> He won his court case.


Evidence, please.


----------



## wiskey (Dec 15, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Yep. Knew I was right.



 

Sorry nothing to add on copyright but ... lolz


----------



## mhendo (Dec 15, 2015)

Actually, never mind about answering my last post, *Stanley*.

I think *wiskey*'s post says it all. You're clearly just trolling and taking the piss now, not making any genuine effort at discussion. I'm not going to bother with any more rational discussion, because you're clearly not interested.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Dec 15, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Let the man who spotted the opportunity to make good business continue. His idea realised. *Just because you have a nice camera and know how to press the shutter release button does not mean you have a right to profit from his work.*



Does that not also imply that you have no right to profit from an architect's work, by painting it?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 15, 2015)

Saul Goodman said:


> Does that not also imply that you have no right to profit from an architect's work, by painting it?



No. I dont think so. You would have to do a lot of paintings to profit.


----------



## mhendo (Dec 15, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> No. I dont think so. You would have to do a lot of paintings to profit.


As opposed to taking a picture of a dog in stupid jacket, which is going to open the cash floodgates, right?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 15, 2015)

mhendo said:


> As opposed to taking a picture of a dog in stupid jacket, which is going to open the cash floodgates, right?



Yep. Sort of.

The guy with the dog had a vision to make a small income from business. He realised that vision. Made it a tangible, copyrightable reality.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Dec 15, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> No. I dont think so. You would have to do a lot of paintings to profit.


Surely the amount of profit isn't the question. The mere fact that you have profited from another person's work is the question, and your argument?


----------



## mhendo (Dec 15, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Yep. Sort of.
> 
> The guy with the dog had a vision to make a small income from business. He realised that vision. Made it a tangible, copyrightable reality.


You are wrong. That's not a matter of opinion. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. You are equating your own fantasy of how things ought to be with the reality of how things actually are.

Are you always this idiotic and obtuse, or is it just on this particular subject? I know i've seen you in quite a few other threads, but i've never noticed this level of irrationality before.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 15, 2015)

Saul Goodman said:


> Surely the amount of profit isn't the question. The mere fact that you have profited from another person's work is the question, and your argument?



Agreed.

I doubt very much if an architect is going to chase an artist for a share of €500 though. They would more likely make the most of the respect the artist has given them.

This thread is about Copyright. Copyright is ultimately only worth protecting for money with money.


----------



## mhendo (Dec 15, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> This thread is about Copyright.


About which you clearly have no idea whatsoever.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 15, 2015)

mhendo said:


> You are wrong. That's not a matter of opinion. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. You are equating your own fantasy of how things ought to be with the reality of how things actually are.
> 
> Are you always this idiotic and obtuse, or is it just on this particular subject? I know i've seen you in quite a few other threads, but i've never noticed this level of irrationality before.



Not at all.

The reality of how things actually are is how things actually are. No fantasising here.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 15, 2015)

mhendo said:


> About which you clearly have no idea whatsoever.



You refuse to read, and accept the views of specialist lawyers I have posted links to here. I have many years experience as a commercial photographer, fine art photographer, and artist generally. Knowing Copyright issues is my business. I know them better than most lawyers.


----------



## mhendo (Dec 15, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> You refuse to read, and accept *the views of specialist lawyers I have posted links to here*. I have many years experience as a commercial photographer, fine art photographer, and artist generally. Knowing Copyright issues is my business. I know them better than most lawyers.


Emphasis mine.

I would be happy to read some actual evidence. In fact, i've asked you for it on more than one occasion.

I have just been through every single post that you have made in this thread. There is not a single link in any of your posts, let alone a link to a lawyer specializing in copyright law. All you have done in this discussion is make a series of unsubstantiated and often asinine assertions.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 15, 2015)

mhendo said:


> Emphasis mine.
> 
> I would be happy to read some actual evidence. In fact, i've asked you for it on more than one occasion.
> 
> I have just been through every single post that you have made in this thread. There is not a single link in any of your posts, let alone a link to a lawyer specializing in copyright law. All you have done in this discussion is make a series of unsubstantiated and often asinine assertions.



You are not very dilligent are you?


----------



## mhendo (Dec 15, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> You are not very dilligent are you?


Fuck off, troll.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 15, 2015)

mhendo said:


> Fuck off, troll.



No troll.

Been here for years upsetting folk by questioning their view of whatever.

You have ignored the links I have posted to advice from recognised, respected, international lawyers and then pointed fingers at me for being delluded, or summat 

You think you can steal peoples art on the click of a shutter release, then you are very wrong.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Dec 15, 2015)

Actually, Mr. Edwards, I agree with mhendo. You do seem to be confusing copyright with ethos.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 15, 2015)

Saul Goodman said:


> Actually, Mr. Edwards, I agree with mhendo. You do seem to be confusing copyright with ethos.



Nope. I am not confusing. Perhaps (in this instance) I am coming from an artists perspective as opposed to a photographers perspective, but Copyright is Copyright regardless. I am not confusing anything. People are confusing their right to photograph with right to Copyright.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Dec 15, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Nope. I am not confusing. Perhaps (in this instance) I am coming from an artists perspective as opposed to a photographers perspective, but Copyright is Copyright regardless. I am not confusing anything. People are confusing their right to photograph with right to Copyright.


Sorry, but I do think you are confused. Unless you sign over the copyright to a third party, the copyright remains with the copyright holder, eg. the photographer. Profiting from those photographs might be a grey area, but it doesn't alter the fact that the person who pushes the shutter release is the copyright holder.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 15, 2015)

Saul Goodman said:


> ...but it doesn't alter the fact that the person who pushes the shutter release is the copyright holder.



There is absolutely no point in contesting Copyright if it is not for financial gain.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 15, 2015)

This is phenomenal...

Info/Law » Copyright and Your Face

So, are people just getting erections over their rights to Copyright, or summat


----------



## Saul Goodman (Dec 15, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> There is absolutely no point in contesting Copyright if it is not for financial gain.


Regardless of financial gain, copyright does not automatically pass to anyone without prior consent.


----------



## laptop (Dec 15, 2015)

Chi said:


> I don't think that's quite correct.. I was hired to shoot the America's Cup Yacht Race by one of the main sponsors Jaguar which was done from their own provided speedboat yet I still own full copyright of all the images which they
> happily acknowledged and paid me for.


Hired != employed.

& what others said: Hired without a contract that assigns copyright == keep copyright == good idea.


----------



## mhendo (Dec 15, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> You have ignored the links I have posted to advice from recognised, respected, international lawyers and then pointed fingers at me for being delluded, or summat


You have, i now realize, posted a single link in this thread before your most recent post. Your link was to a conversation called Photography and Copyright Law. It is indeed a good link, with information provided by a recognized copyright lawyer. It is talking only about US law, and thus has very little bearing on what would happen in the UK, but it is still a good resource for understanding the principles of copyright as applied to photography.

I agree with everything that the copyright lawyer in that interview says. And almost nothing that she says supports the arguments that you have been making about copyright here, especially not with regards to your idiotic example of the guy with the dog. She also recognizes that copyright is a rather specific set of legal rules and requirements, and that what is allowed under copyright law might not actually be the same thing as what *Stanley Edwards* wishes for. It's a shame that you appear incapable of making the same distinction.


----------



## laptop (Dec 15, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I think if the event was in a public place, and or that you took the pictures standing in a public place then you have the copyright for your images.



The thing about taking photos from "a place accessible to the public" is that the act is permitted. Nothing to do with the copyright in any photos.

 If you gatecrash the wedding of a sleb who's struck a deal with _Hello!_... You may still hold copyright in pics you take, but you may also get sued if you sell them.


----------



## sim667 (Dec 27, 2015)

laptop said:


> The thing about taking photos from "a place accessible to the public" is that the act is permitted. Nothing to do with the copyright in any photos.
> 
> If you gatecrash the wedding of a sleb who's struck a deal with _Hello!_... You may still hold copyright in pics you take, but you may also get sued if you sell them.



That would only happen if you managed to sneak into the wedding.

If you take the photo from ground which is public and not part of the event, then there's no issue with selling the images..... If there was there'd be no paparazzi industry.

Edit. Rereading your post I think that's what you said and I just misunderstood


----------



## sim667 (Dec 27, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> If you lot want to doubt the veracity of a highly respected, specialised, international Copyright lawyer with years of experience, then you aren't going to listen to an internet bum like Stanley Edwards.
> 
> US law is very much equal to UK law. The only difference is it costs much more to protect your rights in the US.
> 
> ...



Dressing up a dog that is dressed up and selling it, is not the same as photographing a painting, or and created image with the purpose of selling it.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 28, 2015)

sim667 said:


> Dressing up a dog that is dressed up and selling it, is not the same as photographing a painting, or and created image with the purpose of selling it.



You make no sense whatsoever.

The guy made a costume relevant to the environment with the intent of giving tourists a photo opportunity for a donation. It was he who created the scenario, the scenario is subject to Copyright. You can't get away with photographing and profiting without being liable to a court ruling.

Copyright existed long before digital photograaphy and the internet. As much as the laaw is having to evolve, fundamentally it remains the same as ever. You cannot steal other peoples creative realisations for the purpose of making profit.


----------



## editor (Dec 28, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> YThe guy made a costume relevant to the environment with the intent of giving tourists a photo opportunity for a donation. It was he who created the scenario, the scenario is subject to Copyright.


Does a city planner own the copyright on a street scene because they also "created the scenario"?


----------



## sim667 (Dec 28, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> You make no sense whatsoever.
> 
> The guy made a costume relevant to the environment with the intent of giving tourists a photo opportunity for a donation. It was he who created the scenario, the scenario is subject to Copyright. You can't get away with photographing and profiting without being liable to a court ruling.



I disagree. Ill check it out in beyond the lens when I get a moment.


----------



## laptop (Dec 28, 2015)

Once more, SE is spouting about how he thinks things should be, not how they are.

The main point to bear in mind is that in this multimedia age, most "works" contain *more than one copyright*.

The exception would be a poem in manuscript. In this post there are "thin" copyrights in the font and the forum design as well as the main rights I have in my words.

So in SE's made-up example: there are copyrights in the photo, the dressing of the dog, the patterns on the clothes in which it is dressed...

He's about to cry that he's right. He's not.

In principle, if someone took a photo of the dog and sold it for profit, the designer of the dog could sue. 

BUT they'd be asking a court to decide whether it was a photo *OF* the dog or a photo that *included* the dog. All relevant rights in photos that "incidentally" include copyright objects belong to the person who took the photo, you see. 

Much also depends on the use of the photo. Almost everywhere there's some kind of "news and current affairs" exception - in the UK it applies to reproductions of all copyright objects _*- except *_photos, for reasons that a moment's thought will clarify.

For a court to decide these interesting questions will cost a fucking fortune. So much that the alleged right of the dog-owner must remain forever moot.

Right, that's enough pandering to SE's attention-seeking.


----------



## mhendo (Dec 28, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> The guy made a costume relevant to the environment with the intent of giving tourists a photo opportunity for a donation. It was he who created the scenario, the scenario is subject to Copyright. You can't get away with photographing and profiting without being liable to a court ruling.


You are, once again, flat out wrong, at least for the United states, and you have shown nothing in the law that would support you for the UK. Not a single thing. All we have is your own hidebound certainty, backed by no evidence whatsoever.

As i've said repeatedly, i'm always willing to concede that i might be wrong for the UK, because my knowledge of copyright and fair use is not as well developed for the UK as it is for the US, but i'll need more than your word that your legal "analysis" is correct. Hell, even the one useful link that you have actually provided in this thread doesn't help you because it (a) is for the US, not the UK, and (b) supports my argument a lot more than it supports yours.


----------



## mhendo (Dec 28, 2015)

laptop said:


> So in SE's made-up example: there are copyrights in the photo, *the dressing of the dog*, the patterns on the clothes in which it is dressed...


Emphasis mine.

is this true in the UK? Because in the US my reading of the law and of subsequent rulings suggests that you couldn't claim copyright on a dressed-up dog. Costumes and clothing themselves are, as i noted earlier in the thread, defined as "useful articles," and are not subject to copyright protection, and simply putting a useful article on a dog does not transform the dog into a copyright-protected piece of work, especially as it does not, under US law, constitute a "fixed medium of expression."

Everything else you've written—regarding the ability to sue, the "photo of dog" vs "photo including dog," as well as the news and current affairs issue—would apply about equally in the US.


----------



## laptop (Dec 28, 2015)

mhendo said:


> is this true in the UK? Because in the US my reading of the law and of subsequent rulings suggests that you couldn't claim copyright on a dressed-up dog.



My understanding is that in the UK you could *claim* it... [E2A:  it's "fixed" as much as a stage set is] - and my point is that you could do this only if you had limitless resources and the other side none.

There's no "useful articles" exception (or other let-out) [E2A: made explicit] in the UK. Here, clothing designs most certainly *can* be subject to copyright (as well as one or more of the design rights).

Sort of makes up for the lack of character rights in the UK. (E2A: pending some deep-pocketed writer getting the courts to change the law  )


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 29, 2015)

editor said:


> Does a city planner own the copyright on a street scene because they also "created the scenario"?



Of course not. They are paid under contract to design a public space for public use.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 29, 2015)

mhendo said:


> You are, once again, flat out wrong, at least for the United states, and you have shown nothing in the law that would support you for the UK. Not a single thing. All we have is your own hidebound certainty, backed by no evidence whatsoever.
> 
> As i've said repeatedly, i'm always willing to concede that i might be wrong for the UK, because my knowledge of copyright and fair use is not as well developed for the UK as it is for the US, but i'll need more than your word that your legal "analysis" is correct. Hell, even the one useful link that you have actually provided in this thread doesn't help you because it (a) is for the US, not the UK, and (b) supports my argument a lot more than it supports yours.



There is no real difference between US Copyright law and UK Copyright law. The only difference is that civil legal matters are much more about business and money in the US. The link I posted to very clearly states that costumes are subject to Copyright. That was a link to a quote from a highly respected, international Copyright lawyer.


----------



## laptop (Dec 29, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Of course not. They are paid under contract to design a public space for public use.





Stanley Edwards said:


> There is no real difference between US Copyright law and UK Copyright law.



So you're completely unaware of the US "work for hire" doctrine, just one of the major differences between US and UK copyright law?

You revel in making yourself look stupid, yes?


----------



## editor (Dec 29, 2015)

Stanley Edwards said:


> There is no real difference between US Copyright law and UK Copyright law.


Wrong, again. 
DACS -  News - Fair use: copyright differences in the UK and US


----------



## laptop (Dec 29, 2015)

editor said:


> Wrong, again.
> DACS -  News - Fair use: copyright differences in the UK and US



That's another major difference, yes


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 2, 2016)

*Whilst the Code has some relevance in the UK,*

Whilst the Code has some relevance in the UK, it references US copyright law. Differences in our legislation mean that certain reproductions of copyrighted artworks which are permitted in the US could conversely be treated as infringements in the UK, depending on the circumstances.

The UK and US have based their copyright legislation on similar policy objectives; generally, to balance the rights of copyright-owners with a range of other rights, interests and freedoms.
----------------------------

All from the link you provided. There is no real difference other than money/business.

It pretty much says the laws only differ on wording. UK='fair dealing'. US='fair use'.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 2, 2016)

*When is copyright infringed?*
Copyright is infringed when someone carries out one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights without their permission, and an exception to copyright does not apply.

This can be in relation to the whole or a substantial part of the artistic work. What is "substantial" is determined by a qualitative test, not a quantitative one, which means that there may be an infringement even if a small but distinctive portion of the original artwork is copied.
-----------------------

There you go.


----------



## snadge (Jan 2, 2016)

Good trolling Stanley, too cold for sexpesting this time of year eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2016)

snadge said:


> Good trolling Stanley, too cold for sexpesting this time of year eh?



And too cold for physically-assaulting disabled people.


----------



## Chi (Apr 14, 2016)

Thanks for all the replies folks


----------



## editor (May 4, 2016)

Here's a fresh bunfight with much vexing: 

A Rapper Stole a Photo, and It’s More Complicated Than That - DIY Photography


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2017)

This videomaker  got royally ripped off 
The Sunday Times ripped-off my creative work despite being asked to license it first | Jamie Brightmore


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 20, 2017)

Mr Smin said:


> As a true professional I pilot my own speedboat while taking photos at the same time.


I hope you don't do texting on your mobile while piloting.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2018)

Wham! 

Pest control company uses photos without permission, photographer sues them for $2.7 million - DIY Photography


----------



## mhendo (Apr 2, 2018)

editor said:


> Wham!
> 
> Pest control company uses photos without permission, photographer sues them for $2.7 million - DIY Photography


I just looked up this case in the federal court system. It was filed in February, and there have been no hearings yet.

I did find something interesting, however: in looking up the case, I used the name of the photographer, Alexander Wild, and the search came back with at least 20 cases over the past four years in which he has been the plaintiff. Wild is a well-respected entomologist who works at the University of Texas at Austin as the Curator of Entomology. He takes lots of photos in his work and his research, and his photos have appeared in places like National Geographic and the Smithsonian Magazine.

Almost every single case I found is against a pest control, lawn care, or similar company. They are located in all parts of the United States, and he has filed suits in various federal districts. The companies themselves seem to range from relatively small operations to large, nationally-known companies like Orkin. I didn't read all of the complaints, because after a certain number the court system starts to charge money to view documents, but I looked at four or five, and they're all pretty much the same. These companies nicked his photos, he tried to get them to stop, and when they ignored his efforts, he filed a lawsuit.

There's something else that every case I look at has in common: they all ended in a "voluntary dismissal" by Wild. What this means, generally, is that he stopped the lawsuit after reaching some sort of settlement agreement with the companies in question. I'd be willing to bet that every one of these companies goes through just about exactly the same process in this case. I reckon it looks something like this:

1. You need a picture for your website, so you go and find a cool photo on the internet.
2. You nick the photo for your website.
3. When the photographer asks you to take it down, you ignore him, or tell him you're looking into it
4. You leave the photo on your website.
5. When the photographer asks you again, ignore him again.
6. You get served with copyright infringement lawsuit.
7. You laugh at the lawsuit. "I took two or three pictures. What's the penalty going to be? 50 bucks?"
8. You send lawsuit to lawyer so he can make it go away.
9. Lawyer tells you that, because the photographer has registered his image with the US Copyright Office, you could be on the hook for typical usage fees, PLUS legal fees AND up to $150,000 per image in statutory damages. Lawyer also tells you that the fact that the photographer sent you a Cease and Desist notice and you ignored it, and the fact that you're a for-profit company using the image to advertise its services, will probably make the judge more likely to award a large statutory damages amount.
10. You frantically ask the lawyer what you need to do next.
11. The lawyer gets in touch with Wild, who says that you need to pay him for use of the images, plus extra for his time, effort, and legal costs.
12. You pay, because you're going to lose in court if you don't.
13. Wild dismisses the lawsuit.​
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the people who run these companies find out that they can't just take what they want off the internet without paying for it. I wonder how they'd feel if people used their services and refused to pay the bill?

Wild's website even has a page of images that he's placed in the public domain, and that can be used by anyone for no fee.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2019)

I was given a press pass for a local festival after running a comp and feature for them on Buzz, and then doing a photo feature. 

And now I've got an email cheerily asking me if I would forward them all my images in high resolution. For free, like.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 27, 2019)

editor said:


> I was given a press pass for a local festival after running a comp and feature for them on Buzz, and then doing a photo feature.
> 
> And now I've got an email cheerily asking me if I would forward them all my images in high resolution. For free, like.


You know what they are thinking - if you don't ask you..


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2019)

weltweit said:


> You know what they are thinking - if you don't ask you..


If they'd said one or two - but they asked for the whole lot!


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2022)

And another one. I got invited to cover an event for my website recently.

I went along, documented the event and posted up a decent set of photos that made their event look great.

PR agency gets back in touch asking if they can have all the photos in high resolution to help promote a forthcoming event.
I said no but they're welcome to use 2 or 3. They wrote back complaining that because "they invited me" they should be entitled to use all my photos across all their social medias networks for free in return for a 'credit.'

I ask why I should be expected to work for the company for free while everyone there is getting paid. Credits don't pay the bills (or do anything at all for the vast majority of photographers),

No answer yet.


----------



## pogofish (Jul 6, 2022)

Just had something similar at an event I and my junior have been working - with our own commissioners/own specific brief etc.

So this morning, I got pulled aside by the social media "god" and told we were "disturbing the experience for the attendees" and that we keep our activities to our seats.


Then he told us to drop by his "office" (we don't get a hotel space booked for ourselves, I note) at the end of the day and upload all our images to his devices.

Err, yeah, fuck that..!  

Had a quick chat with my colleague and both of us agreed that we hadn't dome very much around the place and none during the events themselves but the annoying little git in black who was getting in everyone's faces was one of the Social Media Team themselves..!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 6, 2022)

editor said:


> And another one. I got invited to cover an event for my website recently.
> 
> I went along, documented the event and posted up a decent set of photos that made their event look great.
> 
> ...





			https://twitter.com/forexposure_txt


----------

