IPOS Links on Copyright - Essential for Photographers to understand their rights
- Thread starter Darren
- Start date
dawgbyte77 said:
That was what I learned.
I have tried emailing the photographer without any replies.
If I am a handsome guy I wouldn't mind people taking pictures of me, but when a number of people commented that I looked ugly, I don't want my pictures taken lor. I looked myself in the mirror also ugly.
Whilst I am ok with sharing my shots with ppl, I'm not ok if they take it and print it without my explicit permission (unless I feel like it den I do free job. Dat's me).
Heck with what IPOS and stuff. Those are meant to create more and more silly lawsuits and lawyers will luff their way to banks.
These days, I just solve the problem by rendering prints unprintable. 72dpi, watermark and reducing the original photo size to as low as 40 or even 30% of the original size is enuff for viewing, yet its not enuff for prints. If the guy is shameless enuff to print it for sale, he can go ahead. Just dun lemme catch u with it.
Heck with what IPOS and stuff. Those are meant to create more and more silly lawsuits and lawyers will luff their way to banks.
These days, I just solve the problem by rendering prints unprintable. 72dpi, watermark and reducing the original photo size to as low as 40 or even 30% of the original size is enuff for viewing, yet its not enuff for prints. If the guy is shameless enuff to print it for sale, he can go ahead. Just dun lemme catch u with it.
V
vince123123
Guest
Well, what if they just use it online?
jsbn said:Whilst I am ok with sharing my shots with ppl, I'm not ok if they take it and print it without my explicit permission (unless I feel like it den I do free job. Dat's me).
Heck with what IPOS and stuff. Those are meant to create more and more silly lawsuits and lawyers will luff their way to banks.
These days, I just solve the problem by rendering prints unprintable. 72dpi, watermark and reducing the original photo size to as low as 40 or even 30% of the original size is enuff for viewing, yet its not enuff for prints. If the guy is shameless enuff to print it for sale, he can go ahead. Just dun lemme catch u with it.
xray said:
Copyright (and I extend this to patents) are essential protections to creativity. I spend ten years creating and perfecting the best car engine, and say Mercedes takes my design and mass produces it without paying me and my potential income, now how is that? I should just not have wasted my time and creativity to put money in other people's pockets. It is not only the R&D cost, it is also the potential income that follows! Imagine, R&D $1million, Sales $10million profit, total $11million. Even if Merc paid the $1million for R&D, it wont be enough.
Similarly, for photos, and other art-work (books, designs, graphics, videos, etc), to encourage creativity and to protect the creator, copyright is necessary. Similarly, cost of 1 photo = $25,000 (assuming new 1Ds with L lens and powerful lighting, post processing and prints). Sold to Donald Trump to wrap up Trump Tower as a publicity banner = $150,000. so the whole worth of that 1 photo is $175,000 (that is the 1Ds does nothing else
). You won't be giving it away free, right?
Generally, the person who created the work (i.e. the author) owns the copyright in the work. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Some exceptions are:
Employment: If the work is created by an employee in the course of his work as an employee, in pursuance of the term of employment, the employer owns the copyright in the work.
Commissioning: If the painting/portrait/photograph/engraving of a person is commissioned by another party, the commissioning party owns the copyright in the work. For other commissioned works, ownership rests in the commissioned party who created the work although the copyright may be transferred or assigned as established by the contract between the commissioner and commissioned party.
The owner of the copyright may assign his rights to another party or entity. He may assign his rights partially or license his rights in a manner of his choice. The separate rights given under copyright (e.g. right of reproduction) can also be assigned separately from other rights.
Special situations for certain professions:
Journalist or writer: In the course of employment as a journalist or writer for a newspaper, magazine or periodical OR under a contract of service or apprenticeship, the proprietor of the newspaper, magazine or periodical owns the copyright for the purpose of publication or reproduction in the newspaper, magazine or periodical.
Photographer or artist: If a photographer is engaged to take a photograph of a person or an artist is engaged to draw a portrait of a person, that person owns the copyright.
Employment: If the work is created by an employee in the course of his work as an employee, in pursuance of the term of employment, the employer owns the copyright in the work.
Commissioning: If the painting/portrait/photograph/engraving of a person is commissioned by another party, the commissioning party owns the copyright in the work. For other commissioned works, ownership rests in the commissioned party who created the work although the copyright may be transferred or assigned as established by the contract between the commissioner and commissioned party.
The owner of the copyright may assign his rights to another party or entity. He may assign his rights partially or license his rights in a manner of his choice. The separate rights given under copyright (e.g. right of reproduction) can also be assigned separately from other rights.
Special situations for certain professions:
Journalist or writer: In the course of employment as a journalist or writer for a newspaper, magazine or periodical OR under a contract of service or apprenticeship, the proprietor of the newspaper, magazine or periodical owns the copyright for the purpose of publication or reproduction in the newspaper, magazine or periodical.
Photographer or artist: If a photographer is engaged to take a photograph of a person or an artist is engaged to draw a portrait of a person, that person owns the copyright.
dawgbyte77 said:
So if then the shot is take in public, cannot claim
But if shot in public then posted on the net? Can claim or not?:think:
V
vince123123
Guest
Do read the contract or terms of agreement before pursuing any freelance or professional job. Dont assume anything. Having it written on paper and signed off by both parties is a good start. Most people dont know anything about this. The law is as crazy as the people preaching about it.
V
vince123123
Guest
I also hate locks and keys - could you give me the key to your house so I can go in and help myself to your assets?
babyhee said:
V
vince123123
Guest
I hate dogs too, can you remove them so I can go in and help myself to your assets.
Speaking of taking advantage, isn't someone who ahbors copyright, taking advantage of using what the author has created for free?
Speaking of taking advantage, isn't someone who ahbors copyright, taking advantage of using what the author has created for free?
babyhee said:
V
vince123123
Guest
Could you provide us to a link to your stock photos and studio location? I'm sure all of us love to have a studio FOC and free photographs to sell as stock as well. Thanks.
babyhee said:
Similar threads
