Copyright

Share your photos with other surfers here or discuss photography, technique and equipment.

Postby noah's_arc » Tue May 15, 2007 1:24 pm

I can't remember who actually actually raised the issue about their photie being used in the logo of a certain surf shop - but I'd be interested to know how things panned out in the end.

PM me if it's not appropriate to post it on here.

Ta!
User avatar
noah's_arc
 
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 11:52 am

Postby BigShot » Tue May 15, 2007 2:14 pm

As Noah said - wouldn't mind knowing the outcome either.



Ben

I hope you don't mind - I thought I'd add in these references too.

Photographer's rights: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php Relevant to UK photographers, check the *.pdf link on that page for good info.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm - a similar resource but for US photogs. Worth a read anyway - the intro is kinda interesting.

http://4020.net/words/photorights.shtml - again similar to the above two links but for New South Wales, Australia.

There's also a thread written by a very good photographer here ( http://forum.deviantart.com/galleries/p ... hy/506206/ ). It includes model release, consent and more. I've spoken to this guy a few times and he really does know his stuff. Most relates to the work he does which isn't exactly surfing - but the important thing to remember is that whether your subjects are posing in a studio for a fashion shoot, nude in a forest for some arty stuff, or tucked up inside a barrel on a reef - their rights (and yours) remain unchanged.
I include this link because someone mentioned that the guy used in the picture that was being disputed also (may have) had his rights infringed by its use.

This might be a lot more official than your average casual photographer might think necessary, but if you're taking photographs that you intend to publish (including posting online) then it's probably worth doing.


Hope this helps someone (and let's face it, there are enough talented photographers about taking surf shots that legal aspects are bound to arise at some point).

BigShot
Last edited by BigShot on Tue May 15, 2007 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Boards #1 and #2 build in progress now. Follow along at bigshotsurf.blogspot.com if you feel so inclined.
BigShot
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:37 pm

Postby BigShot » Tue May 15, 2007 2:31 pm

It is kinda complicated at times.
My main point of posting the consent side of things, was that the person in the photograph does (in some circumstances) have say over the use of their image - this is why I uncluded the release stuff.

If indeed the guy in the image under dispute in the original thread had an agreement with the photographer about non-commercial use - then the derivative work could well be an issue.

Maybe off topic a bit - but it seemed a sort-of appropriate place to mention it.
Think there's any call for a guide for surf photogs who might be unsure about such things?
Boards #1 and #2 build in progress now. Follow along at bigshotsurf.blogspot.com if you feel so inclined.
BigShot
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:37 pm

Postby BigShot » Tue May 15, 2007 5:23 pm

Haha - right. In that case I misread a bit.
For the record though, I think your tuppence was pretty well on topic. It is the release part and protecting of rights that (I think) forms a large part of the issue here. ;)


I've been trying to find a link I came across a while back. It actually dealt with derivative works (which, it seems to me, does include the logo that kicked this this thread off). I just can't quite remember what it said.

The help/faq section of http://www.deviantart.com does have a few decent points to make about it - though some of it is policy as opposed to law. It must also be kept in mind that it is an American site so not all laws they consider apply in the UK.


In this particular case, the picture (the derivative logo) is for commercial use and as I understand it, that most certainly does need consent. The photos in your shop don't constitute commercial use as it's just the photo itself being sold (might be mistaken here). The logo however is being used for promoting a business (and in fact forms part of that business' brand identity) - so commercial use.

If I can find the link I was looking for I'll add it to my post earlier in the thread.
Boards #1 and #2 build in progress now. Follow along at bigshotsurf.blogspot.com if you feel so inclined.
BigShot
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:37 pm

Postby mealy » Tue May 15, 2007 6:48 pm

BigShot wrote: It must also be kept in mind that it is an American site so not all laws they consider apply in the UK.

I think this is an important point, some BIG differences between UK and US law. Must be a real ball ache having to register copyright and get model releases.

The links were a good read, cheers Bigshot

:-)
User avatar
mealy
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:22 pm
Location: Kernow

Postby BigShot » Tue May 15, 2007 9:35 pm

Glad you liked them Mealy.

I found some of it very encouraging. When I first got an SLR (about 5 or 6 years ago) I was really uncertain about what I could and couldn't do. At times I felt like a flippin' criminal with the looks I got (not doing anything dodgy mind) and if told to move on by a security guard or whatever I kinda just took it as said.
I didn't know any better.

Knowing exactly what I can and can't do (and even better, what THEY can and can't do) has given me a ton more confidence.
Much less likely to get into a sticky situation over legal issues such as copyright too.

In fact - the ease of copyright theft online is one of the main reasons I don't post any of my good stuff online.

In fact the only reason bigger than that is the same reason why practically none of my not-so-good stuff is on either.
I work in film and have no scanner. Haha.


Registering copyright - yes. Complete ache. I've spoken to a couple of people about that and though they said it's not too big a deal as you can submit on a CD or DVD and it's one (small) flat fee for the whole disk - it still seems like a bit of a pain to me.

Model releases - well that's the same as here really. Depends on use. As I see it, it is best to get a model release whenever you can so that if it turns out that you could make a packet out of an image - there's nothing stopping you. Chances are slim - but it could happen. Also keeps you in the clear if someone later kicks off about your images. You'd probably be clear anyway, but I think having it in writing makes things much easier.
Boards #1 and #2 build in progress now. Follow along at bigshotsurf.blogspot.com if you feel so inclined.
BigShot
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:37 pm

Postby droog79 » Wed May 16, 2007 8:42 am

hi people, it was me who had the original complaint about my photo and the shop logo.
thanks to all who have advised and supported me- i have now spoken to the shop owner and have made some progress in resolving this.

i would still welcome any more advice via PMs or (have checked with Ben) we can have a 'hypothetical' discussion around the issue without naming names etc. Cheers.
LIKE MY FACEBOOK PAGE- I do! http://www.facebook.com/droog79
SPORADIC BLOG: http://www.droog79.blogspot.com/
User avatar
droog79
 
Posts: 1235
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 4:01 pm
Location: in a van, by a beach

Postby noah's_arc » Wed May 16, 2007 9:10 am

So hyperthetically, is the shop owner being understanding about the whole thing?
User avatar
noah's_arc
 
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 11:52 am

Postby droog79 » Wed May 16, 2007 9:23 am

hmmm, really cant say on a public forum, in case it does go any further, though i hope it wont.

but, hypothetically, what would be reasonable compensation for the photographer's loss of fee/earnings compared to the shop's increased profit?
LIKE MY FACEBOOK PAGE- I do! http://www.facebook.com/droog79
SPORADIC BLOG: http://www.droog79.blogspot.com/
User avatar
droog79
 
Posts: 1235
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 4:01 pm
Location: in a van, by a beach

Postby Snowfun » Wed May 16, 2007 9:26 am

mars bar and pack of wotsits ??..hypothetically


..also my mate got paid £200 for his shot of F1 in Spain on weekend from some website...nothing major
if its not snow its water
User avatar
Snowfun
 
Posts: 5094
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:53 am
Location: snowfuns inner karma

Postby Chewbecca » Wed May 16, 2007 11:05 am

How about a new wetsuit or something like that? That's what I'd consider asking for if the shop had approached me.
User avatar
Chewbecca
 
Posts: 3134
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:53 pm

Postby BigShot » Wed May 16, 2007 12:37 pm

ben wrote:
but, hypothetically, what would be reasonable compensation for the photographer's loss of fee/earnings compared to the shop's increased profit?


I think the way to look at it was if you'd been approached originally what would you have considered a reasonable gesture/payment for using a derivative in the logo?


I agree with this.
What you accept is up to you - maybe some stuff from the shop like Chewy said. You might need a wettie or some new fins.

On the other hand though, I'd debate whether that would be fair payment.


I think you need to bear in mind that if someone wants to use your photo as a source image from which they made a derivative, it isn't the same as getting you to make a whole new corporate image from your own photo. I think the fair price/payment one could expect in the two situations are different.

In once situation you would be paid for use of a picture you own. In the other you would be paid for a graphic design service, possibly including a bit of extra work on your part, or anything up to coming up with different concepts, type faces and arrangements before presenting them and then producing a final version. That might have extended to the layout for a store-front sign, letter-heads, carrier bags and so on.

So the fair price depends on what you would have had to do. Personally I would expect less if someone wanted to use one of my pictures to produce a derivative than if they wanted me to do the work too.


Again though - I think Ben's point about sums it up. If it is your image, you have a right to fair payment for its use.


Oh and while I remember - did you get to read the message I posted in the original thread before it was deleted?
Boards #1 and #2 build in progress now. Follow along at bigshotsurf.blogspot.com if you feel so inclined.
BigShot
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:37 pm

Postby droog79 » Wed May 16, 2007 12:44 pm

hi bigshot, thanks for your input,
yeah, as a graphic designer & illustrator i have done a couple of re-brands and know the amount of work that goes into that (lots!) and wouldn't charge anything like that just for use of a photo- just a one off 'licensing' fee as i have done with the other shop that used it on a tshirt.

don't think i read your original post before the thread was deleted- please pm me if you think it's relevant. thanks.
LIKE MY FACEBOOK PAGE- I do! http://www.facebook.com/droog79
SPORADIC BLOG: http://www.droog79.blogspot.com/
User avatar
droog79
 
Posts: 1235
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 4:01 pm
Location: in a van, by a beach

Postby Chewbecca » Wed May 16, 2007 9:32 pm

The cost of buying stock photos to do what you want with is relatively low - if you consider the cost of them doing that then I think a wettie etc would be about the same amount (definitely at shop cost anyway) so that would be the thing to compare to in this situation IMO.

I would have thought the main issue here is that Droog has already sold the rights to the image to someone else in a very similar format...
User avatar
Chewbecca
 
Posts: 3134
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:53 pm

Postby mealy » Wed May 16, 2007 10:01 pm

Chewbecca wrote:The cost of buying stock photos to do what you want with is relatively low - if you consider the cost of them doing that then I think a wettie etc would be about the same amount (definitely at shop cost anyway) so that would be the thing to compare to in this situation IMO.

I would have thought the main issue here is that Droog has already sold the rights to the image to someone else in a very similar format...

Gotta disagree with ya there Chew, unlimited use for most images would be +£1000 and thats just within the surf industry!
Cant understand why anyone who has had there work ripped off would say 'oh well give me a free wettie and l'll forget about it'!
If someone used an image of mine without permission they would just get an invoice for x1.5 the amount of what l would normally sell it for.
User avatar
mealy
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:22 pm
Location: Kernow

Postby BigShot » Wed May 16, 2007 10:53 pm

Guys - just remember to stay hypothetical ;)

Chewy - I think you're right about the "already sold it" part. But I do think it is a two sided problem. One is the issue of payment for use of your property. The other is, as you said, that it has already been sold to someone else.

Mealy - would that kind of price be for unlimited use of a photograph, for example a photog who snapped a shot for Quicksilver and they wanted it to use on websites, magazines and more? Or would it be that cost for something that was going to just be cut down to silhouette?

Never sold shots before (always just shot for myself) so I'm not too clued up on prices.
Boards #1 and #2 build in progress now. Follow along at bigshotsurf.blogspot.com if you feel so inclined.
BigShot
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:37 pm

Postby mealy » Thu May 17, 2007 9:57 am

BigShot wrote:Mealy - would that kind of price be for unlimited use of a photograph, for example a photog who snapped a shot for Quicksilver and they wanted it to use on websites, magazines and more? Or would it be that cost for something that was going to just be cut down to silhouette?

The price of an image depends on alot of things that have to be decided between the client and artist.
It all depends on what the client wants to use an image for. A logo may not need unlimited use but may be used in a multiple of ways eg banners, flyers, clothing tags...
User avatar
mealy
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:22 pm
Location: Kernow

Postby onefinleary » Thu May 17, 2007 10:27 am

The usage deal in the world of advertising [I haven't read all of the posts or all of the original posts from droog79 asking about copyright but I remember that it had been used as a shop frontage so I would asume, if the shop runs any local adverts, then it would be press] is an image is bought from the photographer - at his or her's day rate - and allowed to be used for one year with two media usages or two years but only one media usage. This is all for one country only. If it runs in more than one country then additional usage is added. [Usely once it gets to over three countrys in Europe it gets capped at 3x fee and if it starts to run internationally then it is 5x fee.] The fee [this is basic day-rate before any usage] can be anything from about £350 per day for a local photographer to about £100,000 for some of London's finest. Therefore if the designer had come to droog79 to commission an image then the agreed fee would be charged. The designer would have then run this into his costs to the client. It is actually the designer who should be being charged as he needed to 'sub-contract' out the photography. When I shoot a campaign my assistants/stylists/location finders/ producers/ hair & make-up et al all bill me and my agents bill for the total cost. If we forgot the styilsts fees then we would have to bear the cost and not go back to the agency and say 'oh can we bill you a bit more please.' All this waffling is saying that Droog79 should get a fee from the designer. I personally would say that £350 to £500 would be reasonable because of what it is being used for and who the client is.

Any questions please feel free to PM me.
Last edited by onefinleary on Thu May 17, 2007 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
onefinleary
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Wherever my bike or legs will take me.

Postby onefinleary » Thu May 17, 2007 10:34 am

With regards to copyright - as this subject started off on - you have the right to take any photographs on public land but you need permission on private land. If people are in the shot and they are just part of the shot [see examples]

http://www.mark-leary.com/beijing01.html
http://www.mark-leary.com/bathers.html

then you have not got to get them to sign a model release. If they are the main subject [see next examples]

http://www.mark-leary.com/by_fence.html
http://www.mark-leary.com/cpb01.html

then they have to sign a model release.

Hope this helps.

Mark
User avatar
onefinleary
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Wherever my bike or legs will take me.

Postby Matt Rose » Thu May 17, 2007 10:51 am

I not sure the same applies to photos but with music the easiest and cheapest way is to post via recorded delivery the media to yourself. In turn its recorded and a record is kept, it also clearly states the date and who it came from i.e yourself. Keep the media in a safe place unopened! If any legal copyright issue does arise its up to the judge to open the package.
Matt Rose
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 3:45 pm

Postby Chewbecca » Thu May 17, 2007 1:21 pm

mealy wrote:
Chewbecca wrote:The cost of buying stock photos to do what you want with is relatively low - if you consider the cost of them doing that then I think a wettie etc would be about the same amount (definitely at shop cost anyway) so that would be the thing to compare to in this situation IMO.

I would have thought the main issue here is that Droog has already sold the rights to the image to someone else in a very similar format...

Gotta disagree with ya there Chew, unlimited use for most images would be +£1000 and thats just within the surf industry!


We buy stock images to use for advertising at work, dirt cheap. Guess we just use a cheapo image bank?
User avatar
Chewbecca
 
Posts: 3134
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:53 pm

Postby BigShot » Thu May 17, 2007 8:26 pm

Matt - as I understand it, that serves as proof that you took the image, made the music or whatever else.
As for registering copyright, there's no (legal) need here - it's yours by default.

The post-to-self method serves as backup though.

You certainly wouldn't want to open it before hand to prove in person you had it though - all your evidence would be gone then - haha.



Chew - I suppose there would be a big difference between getting something from a stock library (especially those flippin micro-payment sites... bad idea from the togs point of view) where it's a matter of choosing what's closest to your needs, paying the fee the tog expects and going ahead with your usage... and getting either a specific image shot for you, or going for a non-stock image.

It is an even bigger difference when you use an image that you've got no right to use and haven't paid for.



onefinleary - what if the designer was working in-house at the company that was going to use the image?
I take it that in that case the tog would need to approach the company to pursue payment?

Any idea what the course could be? I mean if a tog's image is used without permission to re-brand a company - can that tog legitimately insist they stop using his image?
I'm not suggesting it in this case, but for example assume an arms company used a pacifist's image (far fetched I know) there's probably no way the pacifist would want them to use the image, payment or not - what's the course of action for the tog?
Probably not the best example I know, but it's the first thing that came to me on the fly.
Boards #1 and #2 build in progress now. Follow along at bigshotsurf.blogspot.com if you feel so inclined.
BigShot
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:37 pm

Postby onefinleary » Thu May 17, 2007 8:57 pm

Matt Rose wrote:I not sure the same applies to photos but with music the easiest and cheapest way is to post via recorded delivery the media to yourself. In turn its recorded and a record is kept, it also clearly states the date and who it came from i.e yourself. Keep the media in a safe place unopened! If any legal copyright issue does arise its up to the judge to open the package.


In a digital world unless you keep all the images on your camera you don't quite have the same proof as pulling a neg out and showing this as proof. :-(
User avatar
onefinleary
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Wherever my bike or legs will take me.

Postby onefinleary » Thu May 17, 2007 9:49 pm

BigShot wrote:Matt - as I understand it, that serves as proof that you took the image, made the music or whatever else.
As for registering copyright, there's no (legal) need here - it's yours by default.

The post-to-self method serves as backup though.

You certainly wouldn't want to open it before hand to prove in person you had it though - all your evidence would be gone then - haha.



Chew - I suppose there would be a big difference between getting something from a stock library (especially those flippin micro-payment sites... bad idea from the togs point of view) where it's a matter of choosing what's closest to your needs, paying the fee the tog expects and going ahead with your usage... and getting either a specific image shot for you, or going for a non-stock image.

It is an even bigger difference when you use an image that you've got no right to use and haven't paid for.



onefinleary - what if the designer was working in-house at the company that was going to use the image?
I take it that in that case the tog would need to approach the company to pursue payment?

Any idea what the course could be? I mean if a tog's image is used without permission to re-brand a company - can that tog legitimately insist they stop using his image?
I'm not suggesting it in this case, but for example assume an arms company used a pacifist's image (far fetched I know) there's probably no way the pacifist would want them to use the image, payment or not - what's the course of action for the tog?
Probably not the best example I know, but it's the first thing that came to me on the fly.




If the designer is in-house then "Yes" you approach the company. You could insist they redesign their logo and stop showing the old one immediately.

No, totally good example. I said to droog79 that I'm not in favour of the whole American suing people thing but in reality droog could say that seing an image of him that reminded him of a bad day's surf that nearly led to him drowning has had psychological effect on him. With a good lawyer who knows?

One of my agent's big car photographers had his book sent to an agency in France for a job but didn't get it. Nothing unusual there until someone, whilst on holiday, spotted one of his personal images had been used in an ad and they had never mentioned it. They had removed the print from his book and drum-scanned it. At the time, the photographer was out looking for a new car. My agent rang and said to hold on as he would soon be able to buy himself a Ferrari. :shock: They took the agency to the cleaners.

Of course that is another extreme example but it's whatever you want out of life. I had a major accident whilst working in the US and my boss wouldn't do anything about it - wouldn't even drive me to the hospital. Ended up having about $100,000 worth of medical attention [when I finally got to the hospital.] Thank goodness for medical insurance. For two years after that I had major problems with headaches and my vision. As I had just decided that I was going to move to London and try and become a photographer this was a bit of a problem. :-( My mum said I should sue the pants of my employer. I decided not too - that whole karma thing. Just because someone else could have ruined my life I didn't want to ruin their's.

If I was droog I would do what he's doing [well, what I think he's doing] and have a friendly word and get £300+ out of it.
User avatar
onefinleary
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Wherever my bike or legs will take me.

Postby Alwayzthekook » Thu May 17, 2007 11:10 pm

onefinleary wrote:... If people are in the shot and they are just part of the shot ...then you have not got to get them to sign a model release. If they are the main subject..


Not sure if I have got the wrong end of the stick - & not sure how the laws differ over here - but -

As far as here is concerned, You can take a photo of anyone, and you can sell that image. However, you cannot use an image of someone to promote your business without their permission.

I can take a picture of you. I can sell that picture, and you dont get anything and cant stop me. But, I cannot use that picture of you as an advert of what I am doing.
User avatar
Alwayzthekook
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:39 am
Location: TR16

Postby onefinleary » Thu May 17, 2007 11:34 pm

Alwayzthekook wrote:
onefinleary wrote:... If people are in the shot and they are just part of the shot ...then you have not got to get them to sign a model release. If they are the main subject..


Not sure if I have got the wrong end of the stick - & not sure how the laws differ over here - but -

As far as here is concerned, You can take a photo of anyone, and you can sell that image. However, you cannot use an image of someone to promote your business without their permission.

I can take a picture of you. I can sell that picture, and you dont get anything and cant stop me. But, I cannot use that picture of you as an advert of what I am doing.


In the UK if the face of the main person in the shot is prominent you have to get their permission [and I'm not only talking ad work. If you provide a library with a stock shot to sell they have to have model release forms.]. When we use models in shots if their face is not visible [or slightly side-on so you can't guarantee that it's that person] the model gets paid a heck of a lot less. :-)

I know I have diferent problems when shooting in Oz to the UK so that would well mean that the model-release issue is different as well.
User avatar
onefinleary
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Wherever my bike or legs will take me.

Postby Alwayzthekook » Fri May 18, 2007 1:09 am

onefinleary wrote:When we use models in shots if their face is not visible [or slightly side-on so you can't guarantee that it's that person] the model gets paid a heck of a lot less. :-)


Heh heh!

TBH, the Oz info I got from a mate. I don't know it for myself sure. He has a website where he sells pics of beachy stuff, including girls in bikinis, surfers etc - so I asked him specifically on this matter. He assured me that this is the legal situation, as he HAD to know all this before setting up :wink:
User avatar
Alwayzthekook
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:39 am
Location: TR16

Postby Matt Rose » Fri May 18, 2007 6:28 am

onefinleary wrote:
Matt Rose wrote:I not sure the same applies to photos but with music the easiest and cheapest way is to post via recorded delivery the media to yourself. In turn its recorded and a record is kept, it also clearly states the date and who it came from i.e yourself. Keep the media in a safe place unopened! If any legal copyright issue does arise its up to the judge to open the package.


In a digital world unless you keep all the images on your camera you don't quite have the same proof as pulling a neg out and showing this as proof. :-(


Theres no diference there between using old 1/4 tape and mastering to a DAT,DVD,CD whatever. There must be a way of saving the DATA with an uncoruptable date system. You take a photo say June 06 stick on a card and post it. 12 months later someones got hold of your photo youve got proof. Unless you let it into the public domane, how did they get it? Plagiarism is another can of worms alltogether :?
Matt Rose
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 3:45 pm

Postby BigShot » Fri May 18, 2007 10:38 am

I think the whole point of posting to yourself and leaving it sealed is proof that you had it on that particular date.
It's basically an "I had it first" issue. By opening a package that has a date of posting on it in the sight of official witnesses - you can show that you had the image before the next man.

The only way he'd have a chance of beating you is if he faked his digital files to show a date earlier than that. However, I think the fact it'd be quite easy to falsify the image data would make a posted hard-copy (or even digital copy on a disk) an arguably better proof than a digital.




onefinleary
Glad the example was clear. Interesting story about your agent and one of his other togs. It's pretty dodgy to steal someone's work like that and it sounds like they got what they deserved.
Honestly though, with the exception of scale - I'm not sure I really see a difference between the issue with that photographer and droog's situation.
The only real difference being that one was used as shot, the other used as a source image for a derivative work.

I'm not one for legal action. In that case though I'd probably have done it. Employers have (or at least should have) insurance.
I have serious issues with things like the McDonald's coffee case, and for things like people visiting a surf school suing when they get hurt in a wipeout, but when you're messed up because of someone else's blatant neglect I think it's fair enough.

I don't believe in karma for a minute - but still - couldn't one say that him being sued was his karma come-around for not doing the right thing when you got hurt? ;)

Granted, too late now, but still.

Hope you're better now.


Think I'll bow out of this discussion soon. It's been an improvement on the mud-slinging of the previous discussion about Droog's image, but now it's getting a bit too far into talking about unpleasant stuff like people stealing from others and all that. Not my favourite subject - just a necessary one when you're a tog. ;)



Droog - I don't know if you saw his post - but if not you might want to talk to Crystal Voyager (think that's his name on here) as he seemed to have found out exactly who used your photo and various sites and contact stuff for him. Might be info you need at some point.

What I was saying in the previous thread has kinda been covered since then in my early post about rights, model releases and more in later posts by other people in the thread.

Good luck with it all.
Boards #1 and #2 build in progress now. Follow along at bigshotsurf.blogspot.com if you feel so inclined.
BigShot
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:37 pm

Re: Copyright

Postby sharpy_photo » Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:40 pm

Easy way round the copyright thing- shoot RAW.
You can't save to a RAW... making them pretty much bombproof as proof of ownership.
The 'date created' can't be altered so its all the proof you need.
As for the shop debate payment in full for the source image whether they used it as a sillouette or whatever.
Quik used a tiny section of one of my lineups for the Quik Masters in Ireland poster and I still got a full buyout.
A shop sign will go onto be letterheads, swing tags, tees etc which pushes it to £1000 mark just for UK rights...
sharpy_photo
 

Next

Return to Surf Photography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron