Copyright?

[justleesa]

Problem here. It was brought to my attention that someone used one of my photos in the design of their business cards. Flattering indeed, BUT I was not asked permission and didn't get anything for it. Not even my name was on the card as the person covered up my leesaspics© signature. I approached him, in what I think is a friendly manner...

Aloha "name will remain undisclosed"!

It was brought to my attention that you are using a photo of a vintage scuba diver, that I took, for your business cards.

I do not remember giving you permission to use my photo. What are we going to do about this situation?

Regards,
signed by me

This was his answer, no greeting, no salutation...nothing

Nothing.

It was our understanding that any photo’s on the internet are ‘free game’ to others – according to my attorney.

Anyway, we have redesigned out cards with a picture of our adapters now on them.

How true is it? Are our pictures free game? I know there are pictures, like those that yahoo offers and those that you can buy on a CD that are for such use. But our pictures...are they free game?

 

[Dee]

No, they aren't free. But it takes alot of money effort and time to fight the sleasebags that steals them, and they know that. I'm not up on all the copyright stuff but there's supposed to be a proper way to add the copyright to your photos that will give you some protection. I think it needs to have the © and the year your took the photo on it. Such as ©2004 Justleesa. You may even need to have your real name, not sure...not sure about all of it!

One reason folks post very low resolution versions of their photos is so that if someone does steal them, they can't be used for much. 'Course on business cards it wouldn't matter that much.

I hope ChrisM chimes in here. He knows alot about the copyright thing.

 

[justleesa]

Forgot to mention that the model might not like to be associated with the company. Doesn't that count for something?....My © was on the picture and you can see where the guy covered it up....that's like writing my name on "The Mona Lisa"! Posting the card, hope you can see it.

 

[fdog]

I had the "pleasure" of being a party in a copyright violation lawsuit over a photo I shot. My newspaper published it, and it ended up as line artwork, on advertising signage.

The newspaper sued. I believe the big points were that the company with the signs made money off of it, the newspaper didn't. The copyright was stated in the paper's masthead. The signage was a "derivative work" from mine, and as such, illegal.

The newspaper won, BTW, and the lawyers made lots of money. I don't think the paper recieved much of an award, they were just looking for precedent anyway.

Ever since, I've kept a weather eye on copyright stuff, since I was involved in it once. I do recall seeing an article in a trade magazine regarding internet photos, it said that internet copying was still a violation, and that laws had been tightened even harder in favor of the copyright holder. A surprise to me was that "All rights reserved" wasn't really needed anymore, and that even photos not bearing "copyright John Doe" were protected.

If this guy makes money from these business cards, I'd feel that you were entitled to some of it... but, only an attorney in your state can really tell you...

All the best, James

 

[Al Mialkovsky]

Disregarding legal aspects some people just don't get right from wrong.

 

[justleesa]

Disregarding legal aspects some people just don't get right from wrong.

Yes, sadly, that too.....does that mean I can bash his company now???
An old saying comes back to me
"The ignorance of law is no excuse"...or something like that

 

[fdog]

And then there's the model release. The person in the photo may have a squawk, too.

My understanding is that if you make an image of someone, then make money from it, the person in the photo has the right to be compensated. The exception to this is journalistic reporting.

So if you shot a photo of a person in the water behind a dive boat, then sold the photo to the dive operation for advertising, that person could get damages from you, unless they had signed a model release or been compensated.

All the best, James

 

[Dee]

He sure took alot of effort to remove your copyright or did he just crop it out? Either way it's wrong.

 

[murphdivers286]

Nothing.

People like this guy gives divers a bad name. Unfortunately, some people are out to make money off someone else. They do not care who they hurt in the process.

Keep you chin up. Just remember you are a better person then he/she could ever wish to become. :06:

 

[caveseeker7]

Leesa,

generally the creator always has copyright on the image, unless they were specifically hired by someone else to shoot it, not using their own equipment, yada, yada,yada. Copyright last life plus 50 years. So rights to your images can be part of your estate. Look at any Steve Mc Queen poster or postcard, you'll find that his children Chad & Terry hold the copyright, and will until 2030. That falls under federal law. CA and NY are the two states have protection exceeding federal. As the creator of the image you have rights other than their usage, you also have a say in how they may or may not be altered.

In the past, the © sign, name and year was sufficient, but digital imaging and the internet have made it that much easier to rip people off. You can register you copyright with the federal copyright office for a fee, which is the easiest way to go after infringement. For digital images you can embed copyright into the image, but that is even more expensive at about $30 per image. The software will track anyone downloading it or posting it.
You can then send out invoices and see jaws drop.

The 'model', by the way, has rights, too. Unless taken in a public place with a certain amount of people around, or just news covereage, you couldn't just sell his/her image without written consent or compensation.

pwfletcher, who usually frequents the rebreather forum, is a media attorney here in CA and will know more than I do, as most of my information is a couple of years old and barely covered any electronic media. None of my work stuff is on the net (on my end), and much is still shot in medium format and then scanned, so I have the original chromes. The only stuff I ever posted were the UW pics, one of which immediately found a new, unconsented home (cropped and without my ©, name and year). On pwfletcher's website. :11:

I still have the original (large) files, with consecutive numbers and dated, as well as several witnesses that I took the image, including the client who paid for it all (and okayed them being posted here and at TDS as they're manufacturing the dive equipment). Don't remember if the fact that my images are commercial (as in paid for) would make a difference, but I do know that going after someone in a legal arena is pretty expensive. Then again, how they are used makes a difference to me. If it would end up in someone's ad or business card, or getting resold, they're trying to profit from it. And that means that I better profit, too.