Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-27-2019, 02:19 PM   #1
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,064
Disturbing trend - giving up all rights to photos!

The Industry Needs to Stop Taking Photographers Image Rights ASAP

This isn't the only place talking about the issue but it is on point and topical. Too many people are willing to shed their copyright for "exposure" without a real understanding of what they are giving up and what they are not really getting...

02-27-2019, 03:21 PM - 1 Like   #2
Veteran Member
Eyewanders's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of the Salish Sea
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,343
Though I wholeheartedly agree, I'm not sure what can be done about it. We're literally *saturated* with images these days from every (increasingly decent) smartphone image on the planet, day in and day out, and there are multitudes of folks that don't know or don't care about this issue, simply thinking it's nice to have an image of theirs featured (I imagine it feels like "going viral") somewhere in the public digital sphere.... And far too many marketing folks know this all too well and take advantage of it. :-/
02-27-2019, 03:30 PM   #3
Pentaxian
swanlefitte's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Minneapolis
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,066
Zach Arias had a pretty complete critique about Unsplash and this trend.
High Resolution, Royalty Free Images for Free? Zack Arias Says No!
02-27-2019, 03:30 PM   #4
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,064
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
Though I wholeheartedly agree, I'm not sure what can be done about it. We're literally *saturated* with images these days from every (increasingly decent) smartphone image on the planet, day in and day out, and there are multitudes of folks that don't know or don't care about this issue, simply thinking it's nice to have an image of theirs featured (I imagine it feels like "going viral") somewhere in the public digital sphere.... And far too many marketing folks know this all too well and take advantage of it. :-/
While I agree - I'm not sure the smartphone user is the the only culprit. I think a lot of semi-pro folks get trapped into thinking this is the next big wave they need to ride.

02-27-2019, 03:53 PM - 1 Like   #5
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,559
The practice of patent, trademark and copyright law is a specialized field of law and usually only attorneys who practice in the area of infringement of those areas exclusively know what they are doing

however with regard to copyrights in general:

Do I Have To Copyright My Photos? :: Digital Photo Secrets

____________

How do I copyright my photos?

___________________________
[ quoting ]
Copyright in General

What is copyright?

Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.

What does copyright protect?

Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."

How is a copyright different from a patent or a trademark?

Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.

When is my work protected?

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.


Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”


Copyright in General (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office

______________________________________________

the problem is what happens when you give up your right by posting photos where the sites indicate you give up your right to copyright by using the site

one way to have an argument against giving up your right may be by posting " all rights reserved " with the post ( check my signature block ) no guaranty that would work however

some sites, such as flickr.com you can actively reserve the right of copyright when you post the photo

BTW, I am a licensed attorney but I don't practice in the field of patent, trademark or copyright infringement

Last edited by aslyfox; 03-06-2019 at 04:35 AM.
02-27-2019, 04:15 PM   #6
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,064
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by aslyfox Quote
the problem is what happens when you give up your right by posting photos where the sites indicate you give up your right to copyright by using the site

one way to have an argument against giving up your right may be by posting " all rights reserved " with the post ( check my signature block ) no guaranty that would work however

some sites, such as flickr.com you can actively reserve the right of copyright when you post the photo

BTW, I am a licensed attorney but I don't practice in the field of patent, trademark or copyright infringement

In this case the photographers are accepting work for clients and then giving up all rights to the resulting images and images that may be derivative images of these works. They are not just posting the images to a site (though some of that may occur if there is a stock photo portion, the focus of the article was on specific work for a client). Many working agreements in photography grant a specific use for a photo and leave the photographer in charge of the image outside that use. These take complete ownership and ban use of the images or modifications of them by the photographer. It seems a bit harsh but I'm not a working pro... maybe this is only outrageous because I don't understand the norms.
02-27-2019, 04:33 PM   #7
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,457
Kodak's Kodakit Asks Photographers to Give Up the 'Entire Copyright'

And to assume all risks, and not get paid if the client isn't happy...

02-27-2019, 04:46 PM - 1 Like   #8
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
In this case the photographers are accepting work for clients and then giving up all rights to the resulting images and images that may be derivative images of these works. They are not just posting the images to a site (though some of that may occur if there is a stock photo portion, the focus of the article was on specific work for a client). Many working agreements in photography grant a specific use for a photo and leave the photographer in charge of the image outside that use. These take complete ownership and ban use of the images or modifications of them by the photographer. It seems a bit harsh but I'm not a working pro... maybe this is only outrageous because I don't understand the norms.
Just part of the business, UV.

You choose some images that demonstrate how good you are but not ones that for whatever reasons you could sell yourself or want as part of your portfolio.

It's not much different to being an intern, or working for experience, or indeed the whole photographic TFP relationship between togs, models, stylists and HMU artists.

You of course have to decide which outlets are worth it for your situation, and which aren't.

If you're a salaried worker in almost any field, all your intellectual property output is owned by the company, anyway. There would have to be some negotiated contract to say otherwise, and you'd have to be some sort of hotshot for that, not someone starting or in the middle of their career.

Last edited by clackers; 02-28-2019 at 12:18 AM.
03-01-2019, 08:31 AM - 2 Likes   #9
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,104
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Just part of the business, UV.

You choose some images that demonstrate how good you are but not ones that for whatever reasons you could sell yourself or want as part of your portfolio.

It's not much different to being an intern, or working for experience, or indeed the whole photographic TFP relationship between togs, models, stylists and HMU artists.

You of course have to decide which outlets are worth it for your situation, and which aren't.

If you're a salaried worker in almost any field, all your intellectual property output is owned by the company, anyway. There would have to be some negotiated contract to say otherwise, and you'd have to be some sort of hotshot for that, not someone starting or in the middle of their career.
Excellent points.

I see both sides of this issue. A lot of people work for hire and give away all rights. For example, a top chef gives away all rights to food he or she makes -- diners can do what they want with the meal. And the next night, the chef cooks another meal.

It all depends on whether one views photography as a repeatable process making a repeatable product (like cooking a great meal) or more like a lottery that sometimes hits it big but usually fails.

With the first scenario, there's nothing wrong with selling all the rights to any photograph because the photographer knows they can make more photographs the next day. Corporate photographers, industrial photographers, product photographers, event photographers, etc. can easily do work for hire.

In the second scenario, the photographer wants to retain the rights and make money on each and every copy or use of their lottery-winner images.
03-01-2019, 09:58 AM   #10
Closed Account




Join Date: Feb 2019
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 819
I suppose it depends what it sells for. If it's a decent amount the fair enough but if it's a 25cent sale (I'm looking at you Shutterstock), it's mad. I admire anyone who can make money out of photography these days but in some ways it hasn't changed. You built a reputation and earned off that and you still can but stock photography is deader than a dead thing.
03-01-2019, 11:19 PM   #11
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
With the first scenario, there's nothing wrong with selling all the rights to any photograph because the photographer knows they can make more photographs the next day. Corporate photographers, industrial photographers, product photographers, event photographers, etc. can easily do work for hire.

In the second scenario, the photographer wants to retain the rights and make money on each and every copy or use of their lottery-winner images.
Sure, a working photographer can happily sign both kinds of contract.

Mario Testino might in the morning shoot Kate Moss for Anna Wintour at Vogue, everything belongs to them, that's the gig.

After lunch he might shoot her again, same studio, just for himself, as Fine Art portraiture. But if he's to monetize those pics, he'll have to do it himself, too.

And Kate's two contracts for the day will probably be very different, also. She's a longtime friend, and the agreement might be she only gets paid for the second shoot if Mario manages to sell the results.

Last edited by clackers; 03-02-2019 at 02:43 AM.
03-02-2019, 01:51 AM   #12
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,831
Back in the late 80s I spent an entire year working on a photographic project for the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, documenting life in a residential school, making training videos, and whatever general AV stuff was needed. I fully accepted that I was working as a paid employee and didn't own the rights to anything I produced there. All I've now got from that entire year's work is two Kodachromes that I accidentally kept, and I suppose that makes me technically guilty of intellectual property theft, even though I shot the darn things.
03-02-2019, 06:22 AM - 2 Likes   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
I see both sides of this issue. A lot of people work for hire and give away all rights. For example, a top chef gives away all rights to food he or she makes -- diners can do what they want with the meal. And the next night, the chef cooks another meal.
The Kodakit contract boriscleto linked to includes waiving away "...any rights to claim authorship of a work". Apply that to the restaurant and when a patron requests to thank the chef personally for the meal, the entire kitchen staff looks at their navels and adamantly denies having had anything to do with the preparation of said meal.

Seems like an extreme clause unless what you're photographing is a matter of national security, which is usually not the case for stock photos of pens.


(I agree with the general sentiment of "read contract, then decide if you will work on those terms or not").
03-02-2019, 10:52 AM - 3 Likes   #14
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,104
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
The Kodakit contract boriscleto linked to includes waiving away "...any rights to claim authorship of a work". Apply that to the restaurant and when a patron requests to thank the chef personally for the meal, the entire kitchen staff looks at their navels and adamantly denies having had anything to do with the preparation of said meal.

Seems like an extreme clause unless what you're photographing is a matter of national security, which is usually not the case for stock photos of pens.


(I agree with the general sentiment of "read contract, then decide if you will work on those terms or not").
Although those contract terms seem extreme, they are probably required to avoid future unpleasantness based on the legal rights typically given to "authors." For example, that clause is probably required to prevent the original photographer from sending take-down notices or selling the same or out-take copies of images to a competitor of the brand that is using the image. If a major brand wants to create a new marketing campaign based on some bespoke photography, they really do want total control of the copyright of all the images created for the campaign.

The Kodakit terms are fine for a photographer who sees themselves as a consistent producer of good work but not for the person who is seriously emotionally invested in each image they create. For someone who loves doing photography, work-for-hire can be great. For someone who loves their photographs, work-for-hire sucks.

Your advice to "read the contract" is the best advice possible.

P.S. All my professional income is from "work-for-hire" ghost writing services. My clients get their name on a book and I get my name on a paycheck for writing that book. It's a great deal for both sides.
03-02-2019, 01:02 PM - 1 Like   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Although those contract terms seem extreme, they are probably required to avoid future unpleasantness based on the legal rights typically given to "authors." For example, that clause is probably required to prevent the original photographer from sending take-down notices or selling the same or out-take copies of images to a competitor of the brand that is using the image. If a major brand wants to create a new marketing campaign based on some bespoke photography, they really do want total control of the copyright of all the images created for the campaign.
Yup, and much of what followed the snippet I quoted was to that effect, you relinquish all creative control or any say over how it's used. That makes sense, back to the restaurant the chef can't tell you how to digest and pass the meal, nor do they get any say if you put salt on it (the fictional Gareth Blackstock from Chef! would never sign such a deal).

But how I imagine Kodakit being used or most commercial work, the authorship thing seems a bit silly? I'm imagining someone shooting a hundred dresses for a catalogue. Signing away the copyright makes sense as they have little value as photos except for this years catalogue, but not being able to even point at the catalogue and say you did the photography largely seems unnecessary. It's not like there's another photographer who's going to be putting their name on it in a ghost-photography sort of way (I don't mean the haunted type of 'ghost-photography').

QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
P.S. All my professional income is from "work-for-hire" ghost writing services. My clients get their name on a book and I get my name on a paycheck for writing that book. It's a great deal for both sides.
Cool! So do you usually work under a confidentiality agreement? If not can you share some of your works (by private message would be great)? Or even just the genre?
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
certificate, copyright, courts, damages, infringement, law, office, photo industry, photography, register, registration, source
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Disturbing news about an important photojournalist ... clackers Photographic Industry and Professionals 19 12-17-2018 10:34 AM
Nature disturbing crow war swanlefitte Post Your Photos! 5 05-26-2018 10:44 AM
The Trend We Lead Jeff Lopez Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 3 05-23-2017 09:16 AM
Legal question regarding rights of photos designinme_1976 General Talk 15 07-16-2009 05:22 PM
I have all rights to be Happy..... AlexanderMayorov Post Your Photos! 30 12-09-2008 04:37 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:25 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top