Copyright / Photographers Rights

[farmer_rob]

I think the issue has a number of facets:

1) Public land or not? Is the pony club within its rights controlling access? (I suspect yes.)

2) Competing sales. Is Outlaw selling his photos? (He Indicated he did in one post, which appeared to rile Kiwi, although it appears not for this event.)

3) Behaviour of the shouting woman. Why does she think she has the right to tell Outlaw what to do? On face value, her behaviour was not appropriate.

4) Position of the Pony Club. Did they make an exclusive arrangement? Had they conveyed to members and parents that photography was restricted in some way?

I have dealt with pony clubs in the past (as a parent of participants - not a photographer) and the memories make me shudder - in my experience, pony clubs have a substantial proportion of petty rule-driven martinets, who gravitate to positions of power. I recently had to meet someone at the local pony club for completely non-horse reasons, and it still made me twitch to go there .

[Outlaw]

I think the issue has a number of facets:

1) Public land or not? Is the pony club within its rights controlling access? (I suspect yes.)

2) Competing sales. Is Outlaw selling his photos? (He Indicated he did in one post, which appeared to rile Kiwi, although it appears not for this event.)

3) Behaviour of the shouting woman. Why does she think she has the right to tell Outlaw what to do? On face value, her behaviour was not appropriate.

4) Position of the Pony Club. Did they make an exclusive arrangement? Had they conveyed to members and parents that photography was restricted in some way?

I have dealt with pony clubs in the past (as a parent of participants - not a photographer) and the memories make me shudder - in my experience, pony clubs have a substantial proportion of petty rule-driven martinets, who gravitate to positions of power. I recently had to meet someone at the local pony club for completely non-horse reasons, and it still made me twitch to go there .

To put things straight I am a she a great grandma at that

You are right I WAS NOT SELLING PHOTOS from that PC .

I have been official at PC`s and one phototog that I was helping I let her come along to learn how to take equine action, she knew I was official there but she put ALL her images on her site for sale but it did not bother me at all (Not Greedy)...as I have said before everyone takes different shots and in my yrs of photography I have learnt that ppl like a different
I have never said I am a pro and never will as IMO no one is as we are still all learning
I do not boast on my work as I do not have a big ego .
I do what I do and love doing what I do .
I am not a nasty nanny tog by any means ... I respect others and if I don't have a nice thing to say about ppls photos I don't say anything (1 exception on the stairs Bike photo as that was not nice)but was not his capture anyway..
I respect others so expect to be respected back ..

[farmer_rob]

To put things straight I am a she a great grandma at that...

My apologies - a quick skim last night didn't indicate gender, so I guessed .

[Outlaw]

no problem...I gues most of the ppl that take photos are men .

[kiwi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612575.stm

[MarkW]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612575.stm

There's nothing worse to a Greek than calling him a Turk - what an insult

[farmer_rob]

I think it would be illegal in Australia if he hadn't signed a model release, as I believe it is a commercial use. I'd be surprised if Sweden doesn't have something similar - so either the photographer or the stock photo agency slipped up, or the bloke didn't realise he'd signed his rights away. The cross border issues involved here are a bit messy though.

(I'm guessing he is wearing traditional costume, so the pot is probably offending turks as well as the greeks!)

[Shane.R]

I think it would be illegal in Australia if he hadn't signed a model release, as I believe it is a commercial use. I'd be surprised if Sweden doesn't have something similar - so either the photographer or the stock photo agency slipped up, or the bloke didn't realise he'd signed his rights away. The cross border issues involved here are a bit messy though.

(I'm guessing he is wearing traditional costume, so the pot is probably offending turks as well as the greeks!)

Fair dinkum, that yoghurt company deserves to be sued. Buying a stock photo for the face of their product! How cheap are they? Do it professionally! Damn, anyone could land their face on toilet paper

[Kym]

Just for interest http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/201...ninth-circuit/
Ok, its about software development (my game) but the © principle is basically the same.

[maccaroneski]

I think it would be illegal in Australia if he hadn't signed a model release, as I believe it is a commercial use. I'd be surprised if Sweden doesn't have something similar - so either the photographer or the stock photo agency slipped up, or the bloke didn't realise he'd signed his rights away. The cross border issues involved here are a bit messy though.

Rob I think that you're right - but for a wrong reason. It wasn't the commercial use aspect that would see them in hot water here, but rather, the misleading aspect.

There is no settled law at the moment in Australia that says you can't take an image and use it"commercially" without a model release. The closest that we have are the laws around misleading and deceptive conduct, defamation type laws (I know both Greeks and Turks and either would consider their reputations damaged if you called advertised them as the other), or finally passing off type laws (e.g. if you took an image of Say Ian Turpie, a well known product endorser, and used it to promote something else suggesting that hehad endorsed it).

Of course as I've said before "you don't want to be the test case", so "better safe than sorry" probably applies vis a vis model releases.

[Outlaw]

I have a Q here can my photos be used in a mag without giving me the photo credit ?What law is on this ?

[Xenedis]

I have a Q here can my photos be used in a mag without giving me the photo credit ?What law is on this ?

In Australia, any intellectual property (eg, photo) you create is automatically copyrighted.

There are some exceptions, such as when you're producing IP for an employer, or where an agreement otherwise states that copyright is transferred to another party.

The bottom line is that a magazine cannot use your images without permission if they are copyrighted. If you have granted a creative commons license or some other license which allows other people to do various things with your image, then there'd be an exception.

By default, copyright is yours.

[Scotty72]

Depends on the contract for use between the Council and the Pony Club. The only way you will find out is to talk to the Council and the person who runs the pony club (be that the President of a committee or a single person who instigated the club). Definitely a DSLR will attract more attention than a point and shoot

A friend with some experience in Council matters has suggested (but I have never tried) that if you are approached in such circumstances to stop (we have hired out the council field), ask them to establish that they have permission to determine who is and isn't allowed to be there.

A general rule of thumb

Eg. if a group (eg a dog club) hires out a corner of the park, they have no authority to exclude others from that park (but may ask you to not go within their area (usually roped off). By extension, if you are standing 2 inches from their rope pointing your lens if their direction - too bad for them.

If the whole park is fenced off and you need to enter via a gate etc. then, generally they will have the authority to stop you entering - but shoot through the fence.

As for disobeying a police direction... Please don't forget the words (in NSW at least) REASONABLE and LAWFUL in regards to the directions the cops may issue.

So, being ordered off a public park for no other reason than your possession of a camera - would seem utterly unreasonable and worth a phone call to the Ombudsman etc.



Scotty

[Outlaw]

In Australia, any intellectual property (eg, photo) you create is automatically copyrighted.

There are some exceptions, such as when you're producing IP for an employer, or where an agreement otherwise states that copyright is transferred to another party.

The bottom line is that a magazine cannot use your images without permission if they are copyrighted. If you have granted a creative commons license or some other license which allows other people to do various things with your image, then there'd be an exception.

By default, copyright is yours.

I took the photos for a couple of their feral ute that they needed for the mag and they were told if they use them in the mag or anywhere else that photo credit was to be given to me...
I bought the mag (Downunder)and my photos were used but with no photo credit to me at all...

Scotty nothing to do with PC ...I cant even be bothered with the PC`s anylonger ...wast of time ...

[ricktas]

I took the photos for a couple of their feral ute that they needed for the mag and they were told if they use them in the mag or anywhere else that photo credit was to be given to me...
I bought the mag (Downunder)and my photos were used but with no photo credit to me at all...

Scotty nothing to do with PC ...I cant even be bothered with the PC`s anylonger ...wast of time ...

You need to make sure you get information/clauses like this in writing. Being told it verbally is one thing, but if it is written, then you have recourse.

[Outlaw]

You need to make sure you get information/clauses like this in writing. Being told it verbally is one thing, but if it is written, then you have recourse.

ok thanks...

[Jube]

You need to make sure you get information/clauses like this in writing. Being told it verbally is one thing, but if it is written, then you have recourse.

I agree with Ricktas that in future it is best to make sure you get it in writing. It is surprising that the publisher did not get written authority from you and sort out an appropriate credit with you before publishing your photo in the mag.

However, Ricktas is not quite right in stating that you only have recourse if you have agreement re a credit if you get that in writing. There are two issues - one is ownership of copyright, which means the exclusive right to reproduce (copy), publish (print in a mag), communicate (make available online) your photograph. Based on what you have said, it sounds like you gave permission (albeit verbally) so there wasn't really an infringement of your copyright (I don't know the full facts so I am just basing this on what you have posted).

The other issue about not being given credit for your photo is an infringement of your moral rights - your right to attribution of authorship. This is covered by another part of the Copyright Act and relates to the right to be named as author and the right to integrity of your work. This exists separately to whether you have licensed or even assigned your copyright.

Hope that all makes sense.

[Longshots]

I agree with Ricktas that in future it is best to make sure you get it in writing. It is surprising that the publisher did not get written authority from you and sort out an appropriate credit with you before publishing your photo in the mag.

However, Ricktas is not quite right in stating that you only have recourse if you have agreement re a credit if you get that in writing. There are two issues - one is ownership of copyright, which means the exclusive right to reproduce (copy), publish (print in a mag), communicate (make available online) your photograph. Based on what you have said, it sounds like you gave permission (albeit verbally) so there wasn't really an infringement of your copyright (I don't know the full facts so I am just basing this on what you have posted).

The other issue about not being given credit for your photo is an infringement of your moral rights - your right to attribution of authorship. This is covered by another part of the Copyright Act and relates to the right to be named as author and the right to integrity of your work. This exists separately to whether you have licensed or even assigned your copyright.

Hope that all makes sense.

My turn to be pedantic and correct you - the agreement (albeit verbal) was made with a proviso - please go back and read that part again - a proviso that a credit was printed with the photo. She gave permission with that proviso.

So although there is no question about moral rights (rarely used I might add), the agreement was on the basis of that.


The one main thing I conclude when I read these type of typical stories, is that there is no such thing as "oh I'm not a pro", and yet charging (albeit) small amounts. IMHO, you're either going to approach this professionally or you're not. And thats the key to the issue. Deal with all of these things "professionally" and you're likely to receive a "professional respect". Have all your agreements in writing - they can be very simple. A nod and a wink style agreement can always be forgotten.

[Adrian45]

Very useful imfo guys. Somthing that i had not even thought about until now. Thanks for posting this tread.

[Bear Dale]

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/soc...017-16p0v.html


The thin edge of the wedge?