Once we had someone who had hired Monte Zucker to shoot her wedding try to dupe his proofs in our store. She should have thanked us for stopping her. Monte can afford to take someone like her to court, given what he charges per wedding.
I've tried this a few times, and have yet to get an order from the client. As my wife pointed out, so what if the prints are mediocre? That just makes them think I am a lousy photographer!That said, if I were a wedding photog these days, I would only give the client a disk with JPEG basic images on it. If they want to rip you off the "price" they pay will be mediocre pics that will never print well.
I've tried this a few times, and have yet to get an order from the client. As my wife pointed out, so what if the prints are mediocre? That just makes them think I am a lousy photographer!
* Never leave proofs with a client.
* Never sell the negs/digital files.
* Orders below $2000 - Always get full payment at the time of order
* Orders above $2000 - Always get at least a 50% deposit and outstanding balance on delivery.
* Only sell prints 11x14" and larger
Winger: Scanning prints, "just to send emails" is also copyright infringement
There was no other way to show the proofs to my cousins in Alaska to find out which ones they wanted to buy. And they did buy prints. Which they wouldn't have otherwise.Winger: Scanning prints, "just to send emails" is also copyright infringement
I spent several hours photographing some items that I sold on ebay. I used Alien Bees, umbrellas, light stands, etc. The photos were quite good and detailled. Well, a few months later I was surfing the web and came across the website of the company that manufactured the goods I had sold used on ebay. There on their homepage and catalog pages were all my photos. This place is in Asia somewhere.
I've heard of ebayers stealing photos from other auctions but a company to steal ebay photos for their main catalog, that's going a bit far.
This is a pretty grey area of the law. I think the best thing to do as a photographer is to charge up front and then let the people have a dvd with the images to do with whatever they want. There is no good way to police this otherwise. (I am talking about the average person, not agencies or corps. etc.) A lot of photographers have it in their business plan to charge less for their time and then try to make a killing on reprints, which people resent. I am also avoiding any express/implied warrantees this way as well. What if that digital file gets lost or corrupted? This way it is not my problem.
Charge up front and then let them be.
Patrick
Illegal duplication of copyright material is hardly a "grey area". A photographer owns the copyright to all his/her images unless it is released by him/her. If you choose to license your images away or ignore your copyright, you may certainly do so, but that practice does not invalidate the rights of those who choose not to, nor does it validate thievery.
In reality it is. The copyright laws are definite, but the possibilty of enforcing them is definitely a grey area. You have to cross your T's and dot your I's with the copyright office. I encourage you to try to find an IP lawyer who will take your case if your images are stolen and you haven't registered them. Try to sue the average person for copyright infringement. It is absolutely not worth your time. At best you will find yourself in small claims court with a hollow victory.
I am not validating or invalidating anything here. It is important for people to understand how the copyright laws work in your favor and maybe not so much in your favor. An IP lawyer will tell you that it is better for you to sue the average person whom we are talking about here in small claims court for breach of contract or the like (you do have a contract, right?) than to try to get him for infringement. This is reality. Copyright cases will only be taken by lawyers when the sums are substantial and there is a good possibility of winning. This is reality. I know of people who have made millions this way, but it is not the general rule. You have to be savvy to succeed in this, but the average photographer, even the average working professional has no idea how it works.
Any reference to the law being absolute might as well be made in never-never land. In the real world you can be right and it will not matter. The moral is you need to protect yourself up front, not after the fact. I would encourage everyone who takes images for money or who is in danger of having images stolen to educate themselves to what is real. What you believe is pretty much what is perpetuated by people who are thinking from a moral standpoint, or from their soapbox. It sucks getting your images stolen, but it double sucks when you find out that there is really not much you can do about it since you didn't understand the true meaning and scope of the laws.
I would hope that everyone on APUG reads this post so they can begin to understand what is involved in copyright law and will begin to understand how to protect themselves.
Here is a link to an attorney's website. This is the real world for us photographers.
http://www.photoattorney.com/index.html
Regards,
Patrick
I did not address litigation, which is always risky. Also, enforcement of copyright is not exclusivly tort. I have on accasion had to assert my rights. I have been successful when doing so. (infringment ceased) I have never attempted to recover money, but would welcome somebody worth suing steal an image and use it in a valuable fashion.
I shoot commercial. If it wasn't for copyright law, I would be ripped off on a regular basis. In the post I responded to it appeared to me that you were downplaying the significance of copyright law. Perhaps I interpreted it wrongly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?