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: 64

Replies to This Discussion

I brought some files to Walmart to have printed. They looked professional, so they wouldn't print them unless I had permission. Well, I am a professional photographer, and I did take the images, so I had to sign a release stating I was the photographer, and I granted myself permission to have Walmart print the photos. A big hassle. Previously, I had sent an assistant to Walmart to have images printed. The assistant couldn't convince the Walmart lab tech that she had permission to print photos she helped setup and take. The lab tech did not think that the assistant's business card was authentic. What a hassle.
If an image is going to be used for commercial purposes, any recognizable people need to sign a model release. The release can have restrictions - such as the model does not grant permission for the image to be used for any product related to sexual activity or physical handicap, or in conjunction with religious organizations. Usually the form is written is such a way that the photographer or studio retains ALL rights. In some states, something of value has to trade between the parties, so the photographer or studio might have to pay at least $1 in compensation. The same permission can also be required for property - if you have a recognizable home, car, or even a tree (a tree at pebble beach golf club for example) in the image - a property release can be required.

I photographed a dog for a dog food package. No release was required because the dog could have been nearly any German Shepherd - and was not uniquely recognizable.
The rules for video are more restrictive than those for photography.
I have no problem with people using any pictures I've taken. I ask for notification/credit simply out of a curiosity to see what others have done with my work. I let anyone who asks post-process my pictures and I have no problem with the people who don't ask. I figure that so long as I can prove, when it comes down to it, that I am the creator of the original picture, I don't much care what happens with it. I don't even really care if someone tries to make money off of my pictures, in fact, I'd wish them good luck. It's certainly something I'd never hope to do. Still, I know there are plenty of problems concerning copyright law and I know some of the artists on deviantart that I follow have either stopped posting or post their work with watermarks large enough to be considered sovereign states.

Tis a shame, really.
I sell my images so I get really upset if I find anyone using my work without asking.

It is my work and I don't like having it stolen. I also get quite upset when so many amateurs on sites like Flickr are willing to give away great images for nothing or a pittance to see their work in print.

This undercuts my income. I do not mind fair competition but if I am charging $1,000 for a magazine cover and the company can get something similar for nothing ....... guess what they will choose !

beware and be aware of the "Orphan Works Bill" that is before the US government, It gives a way for companies to breach existing copyright laws by claiming they could not find the author of the work.

It opens a real pandoras box for all kinds of artists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works

This is where I sell my images:


They are open to anyone who passes the image quality requirements.
I also have problems with painters who use other peoples photographs to create their art.

Changing the media does not change copyright law.

I have had this discussion with several painters who said it was OK to copy a photograph as they used their skills to interpret it. They got really upset when I turned up to their exhibition and photographed their work claiming the same thing, I was just using the media I worked in to interpret their work :-) It was OK for them when they did it but it was NOT ok when someone else did it to them !
I so agree! I'm a painter and a photographer. I've had many artists come up to me and tell me they want to use one of my photographs to "paint", as if I took it just for subject matter, not to use it as art itself....most of them do not consider photography to even be art.
I only paint stuff from my photographs, I'm such a good egg!
thanks for the links!




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service