COPYRIGHT - Does anyone still stamp their photos on the back??

[Rob Skeoch]

In Canada where I live, whoever takes a photo owns the Copyright for the most part, and that continues for seventy years after their death.
Of course people might use your photo without permission and you never know about it.
Does anyone still stamp their photos with their "Studio Name" and Copyright as some sort of protection?
What does your stamp say?

Here's a story you might find interesting.
I shot pro sports for most of my career as a full-time job. I often shot NHL in Montreal on assignment, maybe one game a week during the season. The photographer next to me at these games was Denis Brodeur. Denis was the team photographer for the Canadiens for decades. His son was Martin Brodeur, who played goal in New Jersey, was a Stanley Cup Champion, and won Olympic gold. Denis himself played for the Canadiens and was also an Olympic Champion.
We would chat away as the game went on.
Denis mentioned that he knew all the players throughout the ages, and for years he would give the players free photos when he got a great shot. I found this interesting because I did the same. Denis said as the players got old they often wrote their auto-biography about their years as a Canadien. They would often use his photos in their books, the photos he had given them. He mentioned that rarely did any player approach him and suggest a payment for the use of the photos, although they often gave him credit. However one famous book featured a lot of his work, and not only did he not get paid, the photos were also credited "To the personal collection of the author". Not even a photo credit.
I stopped giving prints away that day.

Now, I find myself shooting some Blues and Jazz in black and white. I would like to provide a print or two to the artists, and I'm sure they would enjoy them, but I also want to protect myself and my work. I don't mind if the artist uses the work on social media but things can get away from you and you can't reel it back in. Social media is one thing but then someone else can take it and use it without compensation.

For most of my career I didn't care about this because my work was always with a big agency and they took care of it. This Jazz/Blues work doesn't involve the agency and is small potatoes anyway, but I don't want to regret having my work out there.

What are your thoughts.

-Rob Skeoch

 

[loccdor]

I don't. I have all the negatives if I ever need to prove anything.

But I actually upload the full size, highest detail images and make them downloadable. If I should die or have another event that prevents me from accessing my work, I want anyone who appreciates it to be able to grab and preserve the full resolution copy.

The images themselves are more important to me than their supposed ownership.

Granted, this is from a guy who doesn't make any money from this to begin with.

 

[MattKing]

As I expect you are aware, the stamp does not establish or even much affect the copyright interest you have in the printed image.
But it at least draws to the attention of the viewer that you assert your copyright, which helps in defending any claim you make for infringement by dispelling a contrary inference.
I include the copyright information with information about the subject and process - "hand made silver gelatin darkroom print, toned for image enhancement and enhanced longevity".

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Yes, when I know it will be published I add my SABAM membership number.
Over here we have a rather extended and complex Copyright legislation AND tax and VAT regulation...

 

[Pieter12]

I don't know about Canadian copyright law, but if you hand someone a print, or send them an image and they use it in a book I don't think you have much of a case. If they put it on a T-shirt and sell it, then you might have a leg to stand on.

 

[Pieter12]

I don't. I have all the negatives if I ever need to prove anything.

But I actually upload the full size, highest detail images and make them downloadable. If I should die or have another event that prevents me from accessing my work, I want anyone who appreciates it to be able to grab and preserve the full resolution copy.

The images themselves are more important to me than their supposed ownership.

Granted, this is from a guy who doesn't make any money from this to begin with.

Having the negatives does not automatically mean you have the copyright. Look at the Vivian Maier mess. Plus even if you are the author and have the negative, you could sell or assign the copyright to a third party.

 

[MattKing]

Having the negatives does not automatically mean you have the copyright.

The same applies to a print - giving or selling a print does not assign the copyright interests of the photographer or the photographer's assignee.
It only gives the right to look at or display the print, not to include the associated image in any other piece of work. Subject to "fair comment" and other narrow exceptions, you can't even share the image on the internet without breaching copyright.

 

[Pieter12]

The same applies to a print - giving or selling a print does not assign the copyright interests of the photographer or the photographer's assignee.
It only gives the right to look at or display the print, not to include the associated image in any other piece of work. Subject to "fair comment" and other narrow exceptions, you can't even share the image on the internet without breaching copyright.

Technical and legally, sure. But I would think that by giving someone a photo, the court might rule that the recipient could assume they have the right to use it as they please. Maybe a slap on the wrist and instructions that future usage be compensated. I would also think it might have to be a major copyright infringement for a case to be considered and damages awarded.

Addressing the instances of sports and musician photographers, do they have model releases? Would the copyright issue become moot?

 

[loccdor]

Having the negatives does not automatically mean you have the copyright. Look at the Vivian Maier mess. Plus even if you are the author and have the negative, you could sell or assign the copyright to a third party.

I think having the negatives and most of the cameras they were shot with, as well as the records of buying those cameras, I could make a pretty good case in a court of law forensically that the negatives match to the cameras, and the cameras match to the receipts. Not that it would ever come to something like that unless there were millions of dollars involved. If I assigned the copyright to a third party there would have to be a record of that.

 

[BradS]

In Canada where I live, whoever takes a photo owns the Copyright for the most part, and that continues for seventy years after their death.
Of course people might use your photo without permission and you never know about it.
Does anyone still stamp their photos with their "Studio Name" and Copyright as some sort of protection?
What does your stamp say?

....

For most of my career I didn't care about this because my work was always with a big agency and they took care of it. This Jazz/Blues work doesn't involve the agency and is small potatoes anyway, but I don't want to regret having my work out there.

What are your thoughts.

Why are you taking pictures of these Jazz/Blues outfits? What is your goal? (money, fame, exposure, pleasure, etc ???)

What are your concerns specifically with respect to this body of work? (What are you worried about?)

Do you have the means (time & money) to press a lawsuit if someone did violate your copyright? and if so, to what end?

These are rhetorical questions - there's no need to provide answers here but, perhaps, answering these questions for yourself will help you to figure out what to do in this situation.

 

[MattKing]

Technical and legally, sure. But I would think that by giving someone a photo, the court might rule that the recipient could assume they have the right to use it as they please. Maybe a slap on the wrist and instructions that future usage be compensated. I would also think it might have to be a major copyright infringement for a case to be considered and damages awarded.

Addressing the instances of sports and musician photographers, do they have model releases? Would the copyright issue become moot?

If one doesn't have large provable damages, it may not be worth suing, but the size of one's damage claim doesn't affect whether there is a right to receive compensation - the courts will decide how much, based on evidence of value. It is an issue of compensation, not an issue of "punishment". The result isn't a fine, but rather an order to pay the copyright holder what they are fairly due.
And not understanding is not a defense - a finding of breach of copyright doesn't depend on the breaching party understanding the rule.

On the subject of sports and musicians, the "fair use" exceptions allow documenting an event for something like a magazine review, but if you want to include the photo in a book you are publishing, you need to obtain consent in the form of something like a model release.
In the case of big sporting events, there usually is contract language from the participants that allows accredited photographers to make use of game day images.

 

[Pieter12]

I think having the negatives and most of the cameras they were shot with, as well as the records of buying those cameras, I could make a pretty good case in a court of law forensically that the negatives match to the cameras, and the cameras match to the receipts. Not that it would ever come to something like that unless there were millions of dollars involved. If I assigned the copyright to a third party there would have to be a record of that.

As long as we're in fantasyland...

Let's say you and I and a third party (an unbiased witness) are at a cafe, your camera loaded with film is on the table. A newsworthy event takes place (a UFO lands, a politician is assassinated, the Berlin Wall comes down). I grab the camera and fire off a number of frames before the UFO takes off, the crowd obscures the scene, the medics take away the body. You then quickly process your film and send prints and scans to a news organization that syndicates the images around the world. You end up making a tidy sum and won't share it. You own the camera, the negatives, have all the receipts. But it is still my picture and I own the copyright. I would have every right to sue your pants off.

 

[pentaxuser]

There's only one sure way to get "cast-iron" copyright and that's to get yourself a "Trust " like the AA Trust. Is that possible if you are still alive? It might not be worth the trouble if you are dead

pentaxuser

 

[Pieter12]

On the subject of sports and musicians, the "fair use" exceptions allow documenting an event for something like a magazine review, but if you want to include the photo in a book you are publishing, you need to obtain consent in the form of something like a model release.
In the case of big sporting events, there usually is contract language from the participants that allows accredited photographers to make use of game day images.

Interesting point. I have seen many photo books by prominent photographers featuring celebrities, athletes and musicians. Not sure all have signed model releases, maybe some credit is given in mouse type at the back of the book.

 

[MattKing]

Once you transfer something to a Trust, the Trust owns that something, but you don't.
A Trust may be set up to benefit just you.
There is a whole bunch of really fascinating law about how Trusts are used and misused, and a similar amount of fascinating law about how legislation, courts, governments and third parties support and get around trusts.
And all of it is way off-topic for Photrio.
But to bring it slightly back into Photrio territory, this picture on his obituary is a pretty decent representation on one of my favorite professors of all time - Donovan Waters.
Except his hair there isn't quite long enough, or wild enough, just white enough.
He made Trust law truly fascinating.
https://www.legacy.com/ca/obituaries/timescolonist/name/donovan-waters-obituary?id=53173745

 

[MattKing]

Interesting point. I have seen many photo books by prominent photographers featuring celebrities, athletes and musicians. Not sure all have signed model releases, maybe some credit is given in mouse type at the back of the book.

You wouldn't necessarily see it in the book, other than language that says something about all images used with permission.

 

[Don_ih]

Rob, I think you should put your name and some way to contact you on each of the prints you hand out. It won't stop them from using the image for purposes you didn't intend, but it will let them know who you are. Frankly, I would think that if you gave some musician a photo of him on stage, he would consider that he had every right to use it however he saw fit, since it was of him and you actually gave it to him. That may not be what the law says, but it is probably what a lot of people would naively think.

 

[loccdor]

As long as we're in fantasyland...

But what if a train is coming down the tracks, and you are at the switch with a choice - four innocents or five thieving photographers?

It is funny that you can own the pictures from a stolen camera. I think it shows that the idea of copyright has logical inconsistency built into its nature. But, I shall stop digressing.

 

[Pieter12]

But what if a train is coming down the tracks, and you are at the switch with a choice - four innocents or five thieving photographers?

It is funny that you can own the pictures from a stolen camera. I think it shows that the idea of copyright has logical inconsistency built into its nature. But, I shall stop digressing.

It is more about intellectual property than a physical item. One can own a building, but unless one also owns the copyright to its design, anyone can sell images of it.

 

[Pieter12]

You wouldn't necessarily see it in the book, other than language that says something about all images used with permission.

I grabbed my copy of Close by Martin Schoeller which consists of 136 pages almost entirely of full-page bleed close up portraits of celebrities. On the last page, he profusely thanks the photo editors who assigned the portraits and his various assistants and coordinators. I don't think permission is mentioned at all. Neither permission from the magazines (who probably got permission from the celebrities for their use) or from anyone else.

 

[BradS]

I grabbed my copy of Close by Martin Schoeller which consists of 136 pages almost entirely of full-page bleed close up portraits of celebrities. On the last page, he profusely thanks the photo editors who assigned the portraits and his various assistants and coordinators. I don't think permission is mentioned at all. Neither permission from the magazines (who probably got permission from the celebrities for their use) or from anyone else.

Surely, the actual fact that they have permission is what matters. The small print (or lack thereof) in the end notes matters very little in this case.

 

[Pieter12]

Surely, the actual fact that they have permission is what matters. The small print (or lack thereof) in the end notes matters very little in this case.

I would take it that the absence of lawsuits would indicate permission.

 

[Kino]

Cynically and sadly, I think no matter what part of the World you live in, your ability to obtain a satisfactory outcome of copyright infringement depends largely on the size of your wallet and resolve in regard to the resources of the infringer.

 

[MTGseattle]

There was an article in the NY Times today that talked about the majority of current film processing clients never coming back for or asking for their negatives.

 

[Pieter12]

Cynically and sadly, I think no matter what part of the World you live in, your ability to obtain a satisfactory outcome of copyright infringement depends largely on the size of your wallet and resolve in regard to the resources of the infringer.

A number of illustrators and graphic designers have successfully sued the GAP, a major retailer, for copyright infringement.