Think those pics on the internet are free to use? Think again.

[Bob Hubbard]

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration.

Advantages of Copyright Registration

• Copyright registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
• Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, copyright registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.
• If made before or within five years of publication, copyright registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
• If copyright registration is made within three months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
• Copyright registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies.

http://inventors.about.com/od/copyrights/a/copyright_2.htm

 

[granfire]

I've had 2 models do that. One, oh, yesterday.

oh my...

True and not true. There's enough decent amateurs that you'll always find a fair shooter.
But the pros won't touch you once word gets around...and we do network.

Well, yes, decent amateurs (and crappy 'pros') But the number of reliable people is going down across the board it seems.

A couple of the event shooters I was talking to take the idea of "you know they're gonna steal it, scan it, share it, pass it around. So price it so you get your money for the whole shoot up front. Anything afterwards is gravy. I try to stay affordable, but my event sales have been rather low.

Seems to be the trend sadly.

 

[granfire]

Somewhere on a server in China, is an entire copy of MT. They ran a bot against the site, ripping it post by post, changed everyones names to other names. No images. Running on a bootleg version of vB. Nothing I could do but start blocking China from accessing MT.

LOL, that is kind of funny.

But China is the world's worst about those copyright issues...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You also have to think Bob that is people use your work and spread it via word of mouth that you might get better sales down the road.

Doesn't seem to work that way. My stuffs everywhere, but honestly in many cases I've got no idea who the folks using it are, and I wouldn't classify myself as being in demand. Also, 10 years of covering tournaments, I think I sold 5 cd's of pics. I've pretty much stopped attending events and covering them on 'spec' (The idea that someone will buy a cd of pro coverage shots). Not worth the gas to go across town (and I drive a hybrid, lol).

I think if you are a photographer in this day and age with digital everything that it is getting harder and harder unless you do weddings or are like Peter Lik and get your own TV show. It is a medium that has become more doable for the masses because of digital camera's. Note: that does not mean they are better because they are not but that they can come up with some thing half ways decent to replace what would have cost a lot more!

Very true. More and more people turn to "Uncle Larry" to do their coverage. "Larry" is that guy we all know. Always has the cool toys, and his camera is no exception. He might have a entry level prosumer DSLR like the Canon D60 and a nice 18-200mm IS lens. He plays with the cool modes, but loves to just lock it in Auto and use the on board flash to turn everyone into demons. (red eye). But "Larry" works a lot cheaper than the $500 to just show up experienced wedding shooter. So what if he cuts off grandma's head in half the shots.


The other problem is, microstock. In the old days, photographers would license their work for hundreds, often thousands of dollars, under rigid controlled and limited licenses. (This is the situation with the OP btw). Today, you can hit istock or shutterstock and for $1-5 get an image you can use indefinitely without worry on your web site.

(Note: If the subject of the OP had basically dropped $10 on microstock, they wouldn't be up the proverbial creek right now facing a serious business impact). When I can't satisfy a clients photo needs myself, I've turned to microstock for a few sites, usually to use as placeholder images until we can get in-house shots up.

But, unless you have tens of thousands of images in the mix, it's hard to make any money shooting for microstock, and you risk hitting gluts with too many similar shots. (case in point, it's hard to get a shot of Niagara Falls accepted as every angle's already been shot by a dozen other folks so isn't in demand).

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, yes, decent amateurs (and crappy 'pros') But the number of reliable people is going down across the board it seems.

I charge $15 for an 8x10 print. It's on pro paper, done in a pro lab. In short, it's quality that will last. Along comes someone else with a $99 ink jet printer and the bargain paper from Office*. They knock out prints for $5 on the spot.
They also shot for free, I ask for a $100 minimum guarantee a lot of the time (covers my gas, lunch and paying my assistant, not much else).
I have pro lights, he has the $99 start up special from the local photo shop. His work's all over the place, mine is spot on (I can crank out portraits in my sleep).
I have insurance, he doesn't.

Guess who I'm losing gigs to?

Then there was the event promoter who wanted my to drive 6 hours, spend 3 days covering his 200+ competator event, where he was expecting 1,000 spectators.
All on my dime.
I could sell cd's of the event at the event.
Oh, and give him a meager 40% of my profits to boot.

I told him what my day rate was, that I expected hotel, travel and meals as well.
That I'd split the cd sales with him 50/50, and if his event was as successful as he saw it, he'd still make a couple grand after paying me.

Never heard back, saw the work his buddy did, and we laughed.

Yeah.....and people wonder why I shoot models so much. LOL!

 

[granfire]

LOL, pretty much par for the course.

I had considered pointing you into the direction of horse show shooting...
but aside from horses being particular to shoot, horse people are cheap (though think nothing of dropping 3k on a new saddle, just because) and ******* crazy to boot!

:lfao:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I know a photographer who is doing quite well with horse shows, but her work is spectacular. I also know she busts her *** to get the gigs, and is constantly dealing with newbies and competitors trying to undercut her.

I've found martial artists to be cheap. Had 1 $120/hr guy tell me a few years ago that my hosting rates were too high (was $60/yr at the time).

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Problem with copyright laws too is, they aren't universal. Places like China, don't care. They are beyond the reach of US law enforcement, and happy to flaunt it. While there are some differences between most nations laws, the US, Canada, Britain, and most of Europe honor each others and work together to enforce them. It's not easy should I have to say, sue someone in Canada, but it can and often is done. (Not by me yet).

In the event of unauthorized use, you usually start with the nice 'please remove it' letters, and escalate to the DMCA take down notice sent to the ISP, along with lawyers getting involved.

Regarding the OP. That was the procedure they followed. An infringement notice, a request for settlement and an offer to license going forward, followed by a demand for payment, followed by another demand, followed by a final notice, now passed over to a collections group, soon to go back to lawyers with a court summons. This particular former client, had a habit btw of 'never getting notices', despite being sent them in both hard and electronic format, complete with tracking...

Playing stupid, only costs you more later on. Never got a DMCA notice on them though. Weird.

 

[jks9199]

Y'know, I have a simple take on any sort of piracy like this.

I ask myself one simple question: Is the original creator/artist getting their take on their work by how I'm using it? If the answer is yes, then my use is probably OK, because I have either obtained permission, paid for it, or it was freely available otherwise. If the answer is no, then I don't use the item.

I'll admit, there was a time when I really didn't get how a photographer could copyright my face. But I've since learned the difference between a real pro's portrait, or even just the quick shots around an event, and realized that there is a huge difference, and a whole lot of work involved. And that's before any editing or other work with the image....

 

[granfire]

Y'know, I have a simple take on any sort of piracy like this.

I ask myself one simple question: Is the original creator/artist getting their take on their work by how I'm using it? If the answer is yes, then my use is probably OK, because I have either obtained permission, paid for it, or it was freely available otherwise. If the answer is no, then I don't use the item.

I'll admit, there was a time when I really didn't get how a photographer could copyright my face. But I've since learned the difference between a real pro's portrait, or even just the quick shots around an event, and realized that there is a huge difference, and a whole lot of work involved. And that's before any editing or other work with the image....

Well you can copyright your face...but honestly, most of us are not interesting enough for that....

 

[Archangel M]

Well, colour me interested! What an unexpectedly fascinating subject. I have two distinct views on the matter of copyright in general.

One is as an ordinary human being who thinks that people should get due recompense for what their skills have produced.

The other is an economist (and AAT accountant with a side-salad of the appropriate contract law).

That's the side of me that thinks Angel has it right when he says that the copyright laws as presently formulated are a hopeless tool for the fast moving digital age.

Do you know who you can thank for the present silly duration of cpyright? Disney. They pushed and pushed to extend copyright to unreasonable lengths. Prior to that, copyright had a short duration judged to be long enough for a person to profit from their creativity and ideas without denying the rest of humanity the chance to benefit from or build upon those creations.

With it so prevalent and happening with everybody from kids copying them to FB to outright commercial infringement, this "old school" method of lawsuits that do nothing but enrich attorneys and drag on for years should be seen as an obvious fail IMO. There needs to be new law on this issue that makes more sense.

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't know how they'll ever be able to enforce IP laws without destroying the internet as we know it. The whole idea driving the internet is about sharing information randomly with anyone who wants to look. As it grows organically and pervades our lives, I can see a time arriving quickly where IP laws become meaningless. The definition of theft will change because it's simply unenforceable to apply it to the internet. It's a step toward the hive mind collective conscious.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Copyright is a difficult issue on the web. Or rather, the line between fair use and infringement. Technically, every pic I make is copyrighted to me. Yet if I put them on the web for all to see, I am not expecting to receive income for it.

Same with the demotivational posters that often get posted in various places. Sure, the guy who made one has the copyright to it, but if he put it in a public location without notice, then what?

I am willing to concede that technically, I should receive written permission before posting it somewhere. But if we have to start doing that, who on earth is going to do the paperwork? One way or another, the lawyers will profit.

So my position is that if it is from someone who generates an income, or from an artist, etc I treat it as copyrighted and don't touch it. In other words: if it means something tangible for someone. If it was posted publicly on failblog or demotivational.com or whatever, I use it for personal / non profit use, and remove it if someone complains. By the same token, people are free to do whatever they want with the pics I put online for non commercial / non profit use.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Just a minor point. You folks did notice the copyright notice on my current avatar right?
It's there to ensure my tush is protected when there's an issue later.
Now if someone sends me an email "hey bob, love the jet, you mind if I use the shot" I'm most likely to say "ok".
But if I find the shot elsewhere, and they cropped out my mark, I'll be nasty.

I as a photographer walk a fine line between risking misuse of my work, and needing to get it out there to be seen. Most of the 'click stop' stuff, doesnt work, huge watermarks just ruin the shot and a trained editor can edit that out anyway. So I go on trust, worry about the 'big' shots, and don't sweat the small things. Someone will probably like my pebble shot, use it as a background on a web site. I don't sweat it, but I don't earn tens of thousands from my photos yet either.

 

[jks9199]

Well you can copyright your face...but honestly, most of us are not interesting enough for that....

Hell, except for my mother & my wife who opinions may be a bit biased... I'd probably be better off asking for donations to live wearing a gunny sack over my face!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Actually, no. Can't copyright your face, but you can register it as a trademark.

You can copyright a photo or painting or drawing or CGI rendition however.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Who is an author?
Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher. In cases of works made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author. See Circular 9, Work-Made-For-Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act.

What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

Where is the public domain?
The public domain is not a place. A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.

What is a work made for hire?
Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, there is an exception to that principle; the exception is a work made for hire, which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer, or commissioning party, is considered to be the author. See Circular 9, Work-Made-For-Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act.


http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

 

[Bob Hubbard]

See how much you know about copyright
http://plagiarism.umf.maine.edu/copyright/copy_infrin.html

Short yes-no quiz.

 

[Steve]

$850 is overpriced... by a lot, unless the photo is specific and unique to the project. Royalty free stock photography of high quality cam be purchased for around $12. That's for a large, wditable, royalty free image._ look at sites like istockphoto.com.

 

[Xue Sheng]

And now...I shall start linking pictures of Mickey Mouse that are directly from Disney to MT