I've been a lot less willing to post my photos or writing online since I found a (now ex) friend claiming something I'd written as hers. I don't mind letting other people see my photos, and will even let friends use them in art (as long as what I've done is attributed). I've been considering donating some prints to local charitable organizations. However, where I draw the line is when someone takes a photo without asking, or if they were to take a photo with the intent of making money from it.

How do you feel about this? Has anyone ever had an issue with people copy-and-pasting their photos without asking, or even trying to make money from your work without asking? I notice it's common on AN for people to copy photos from other sources. I rarely see any attribution.

Views: 99

Replies to This Discussion

If there's an obvious copyright for the picture, I would never touch it. Working in a photo lab/studio, I am well aware of copyright laws regarding making copies of another photographers work. We always insist on a release, or we refuse the work. Sometimes though, the photographer didn't put a copyright symbol or any identifying information. In this case, even if it looks like a studio shot, it is free to be copied, having no actual copyright on it. On the web also, photographer that wish to protect their work will indicate somewhere that the picture is not to be copied without permission or attribution. Most people know if they post their work on the web, someone, somewhere will copy it if it is not protected. In this case, there is nothing the photographer can do.
Under US law, a copyright notice is not necessary for a work to be protected by copyright.
It depends on how the images are being used... Unless I am mistaken, simply posting an image to a profile on a social networking site constitutes fair use, therefore not violating any copyright.

For my own work, I use deviantart.com, where I post my photos mainly as stock resources for other artists to use freely as long as they do not use it for profit. I like the idea of other artists using my stock to create art or just to hone their Photoshop skills. However, each of my stock images carries the following notation:

Free for all non-commercial/profitable use, but please leave a comment with a link to your finished work here, and a link to my gallery. For commercial use, please send me a note with a description of your intent for and we can negotiate possible use.

This seems fair enough to me. If someone is going to make money using my images, I should get something out of it. I also have my photos available for purchase as prints, in the hopes that maybe I'll make a little extra cash simply for taking photos of stuff I like. Granted, I am not a photographer by trade, so I can see where my leniency on the matter would not be advantageous to a professional.

Anyway, that's my USD$0.02 on the matter.
Somebody posted a photo I took of them onto Deviantart. I did not approve of their use of my image so I asked them to remove it and they did remove it.

You can protect your images even if they don't have a copyright symbol. All you have to show is that you are the original creator to claim ownership of all rights. If the user claims rights, ask them to produce evidence that permission was granted. If, for example, you did put a copyright symbol in the corner of all your images, and someone copied your image and cropped or retouched the copyright symbol away, they do not suddenly become lawful owners of your image. The original artist retains rights unless specifically given away.

I think that if you put your images into Facebook, etc., Facebook claims the right to use the image any way they want, but it does not grant other users to use your image. I think Facebook's claim to rights to your image(s) was part of a recent controversy, and I don't know what the final outcome was.

If you derive income from your photography, you have an even better case regarding compensation from unauthorized use. Photographers have found their images being use without permission and won damages in court, often amounting to much more than their usual annual salaries.

[I am a professional photographer]
If someone takes a photo of me, do I not own the rights to my image/likeness?
No. The photographer owns the right to the image he has created, which you have allowed him to take with you in the image. What he does with that right (copyright it so only he may use it for gain, or just flat give it to you to use however you want), is up to him. If you write a true story about a person, does that person own the right to your words?
If you write a true story about a person, does that person own the right to your words?

Depends on the country... If you write a story about me, and it gets published in the UK (or is even read by someone in the UK, especially online), I can deny its validity and sue you, and it would up to you to prove that it's true. That's not so much copyright as much as libel, but you get the idea. It's your right as long as you have proof.

That said, I seem to remember hearing something very different about image use, which is why you often see people's faces blurred out in video used on television if they did not sign a release form.
Yes, I know release forms are needed if the image of the person will be used in such cases or for advertising, etc. But for a person who goes to a photographer and requests he do their portrait, the photographer is using his expertise and equipment for this, so he owns the right to that image in order to sell prints of that image to the person. That person can not take a print of that image, copyrighted, and take it to Walmart and say "here, you can copy it because it's me in the picture". Try it....they won't...they've already been sued doing it. In fact, if it even resembles a studio picture, they won't touch it, copyright symbol or not.
That's weird, because I've done exactly that with my wedding portraits.
Do they look professional or like snap shots? Also depends on who you get helped by. I used to work for Walmart, so I know their policy on that. They're usually gun shy about copying.

Coincidentally, my associate and I are arguing about this very subject...so I found this link.

He claims the last few lawyers he talked to all had different stories on the laws. One even said one can't even actually copyright anything at all. Another claimed you can't copyright the image of another person. It's all very confusing. I read somewhere it's not a crime, it's a civil matter, UNLESS, the amount lost is over $2500, which is then a felony?
The portraits look very professional. But I wouldn't expect the average Walmart employee to give a rat's ass about copyright law.
Although the creator of a work usually owns the copyright, that is not always the case. When you hire someone to take a photo for you, it may be a work-for-hire. Whether it is or not depends on the agreement or relationship that exists between you and the photographer. If it is, then you own the copyright; the photographer does not.

You can copyright an image of another person. (It should be noted that you don't actually have to do anything to formalize a copyright. It exists as soon as the work is created in a fixed medium.) However, you may not be able to use your copyrighted image of another person without that person's permission. There is a difference between copyright and publicity rights.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service