Copyright / Photographers Rights

[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.

[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.

[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?

[RaoulIsidro]

The negative side effects of these laws being passed is the lack of proper education of the persons who are tasked to enforce it.
Without proper training to implement these laws, each of these rangers or patrols can become a Judge Dredd or Harry Callahan.
It seems enthusiast photographers are more aware of the laws than those who implement the policies.

[Bear Dale]

Very good point Raoul.

[reaction]

it is sad, but we are powerless to change it. the self righteous and politically motivated care only for the control and power they gain

[Scotty72]

Of course we can change it.

We demonstrate and use civil disobedience.

[Kym]

Of course we can change it.
We demonstrate and use civil disobedience.

But as a teacher your should know "Won't someone think of the Children?"
http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress...e_children.jpg



And therein lies the real problem, no-one (Joe Public) really thinking.

[Longshots]

Of course we can change it.

We demonstrate and use civil disobedience.

Or we can unite and use the power of the word to lobby those who need to listen. AFA is already having success by doing this. I'd urge people to support them.

Had it not been for constructive lobbying by representatives (ie volunteers, like myself), the Australian Copyright law would not have been changed/amended.

[farmer_rob]

Or we can unite and use the power of the word to lobby those who need to listen. AFA is already having success by doing this. I'd urge people to support them.

Had it not been for constructive lobbying by representatives (ie volunteers, like myself), the Australian Copyright law would not have been changed/amended.

Had it not been for lobbying by other industry bodies, australian copyright laws would not have some of the egregious clauses regarding anti-circumvention devices and other restrictions on fair dealing introduced 10 years ago.

Lobbying cuts both ways - it is not always volunteers, and you are often working against well connected and well funded groups.

[Kym]

Another press item...

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

The right to record events in public spaces is fast being eroded.

About a year ago, photo enthusiast Sean Farrow was struck by the beauty of Cape Schanck during a visit and wanted a picture of the beach and cliffs in the midday sun. He grabbed his new digital camera and headed down the steps to the sand until he was stopped by a booming voice from above.

It wasn't the voice of God, but someone whose power was equally closed to question. A uniformed ranger from Parks Victoria informed him: ''I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave, that's not permitted here.''
Advertisement: Story continues below

According to Parks Victoria, commercial photography or filming in Victorian national parks is banned unless the photographer has paid for a permit. Such distinctions were apparently lost on the ranger because at that stage Farrow was hardly a commercial photographer. The camera he was carrying was relatively cheap, good enough for a competent amateur. It was, however, sufficient for the ranger to sense a transgression, so Farrow put away his equipment and left.

At the end of August, a group of photographers calling themselves Arts Freedom Australia held a rally in Sydney to protest at what they feel are increasing erosions of the right to record whatever is happening in a public place - a right that is supposedly enshrined in law.

There is growing alarm as freedoms to record life and nature are being restricted in a manner unprecedented in the years since 1825, when Frenchman Nicephore Niepce made the first photograph.

Since then, photography has produced an amazing record of human life. It has shown the horrors of war, beauty of nature, triumph of achievement, degradation of poverty, hubris of celebrity, but most importantly it has recorded everyday life. It is this latter category that is often most treasured.

<snip> ... more via the link

The comments are a good read as well.

[Kym]

Mod note: Threads merged

[Scotty72]

Also, as a teacher, I know that the expression "Won't someone think of the Children?", whilst a valid concern, is an often abused by those in authority to stamp on people's rights. (which is the point of the cartoon you posted - I guess)

It is like 'terrorism' - it is used to justify the gross abuse of human rights. (again, I suspect you already think this too)

Scotty

[olympuse620]

Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out but the links that you put in the initial sticky work any longer

[ricktas]

Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out but the links that you put in the initial sticky work any longer

Sorry bout that, looks like the copyright council have started to introduce a fee for access to some of the information:

See this: http://www.shop.copyright.org.au/pro...roductid=16559

Some free stuff can be found on this page: http://www.copyright.org.au/search-r...q=photographer