 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Wayne wrote: |
| ..........Main thing to remember is that there is nothing on any picture that cant be changed so watermarks dont work........... |
Agreed, if the target picture is the only one suitable, but the hassle of changing means that an un-watermarked picture is easier to pirate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| richmond, what's the point of model release forms then? |
Presumably to avoid any suggestion by a model that they have rights in a photo' (it can't do any harm) and perhaps because people are ignorant of the law. It is not unusual for people to be asked to sign pointless, or unenforceable, agreements.
Stoatsbrother, those apostrophe cops get everywhere, do they not? I'm happy with my apostrophe use in "photo's", but of course now that I'm a "face", I'll probably suffer from constant harrassment. I might even have my apostrophes seized and used to fund a community project of some sort.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Fri 26-06-09 8:35; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| flangesax wrote: |
| Quote: |
In the absence of any agreeement to the contrary, copyright in a photo' belongs to the owner of the film or other medium, presumably Shoogly. The subject, directed or not, has no automatic right.
|
Well according to UK law, this is only the case in a public place.
As a ski piste is owned land and you have to pay admission in the form of a ski pass then surely it is a private area??.... oohhh doean't this then mean you are supposed to seek permission from the owner too?? |
I don't think that that is correct. If a photographer creates a photo' in the course of his/her employment, the copyright will normally belong to the employer, but I'm not aware that where the photo' was taken makes any difference (although I don't know much about copright in photo's). It is possible, although hard to imagine under what circumstances, that when a photo' is taken on private land, without permission, and the landowner suffers damage as a result of the copyright in the resulting photo', the landowner might be awarded some benefit under the copyright.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Fri 26-06-09 8:41; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
yep... you must seek permission to take a photo of a person in a private place.
Caused all sorts of problems at schools when I used to teach... sports days, concerts etc etc etc... and not because they were children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
flangesax, possibly (although it sounds unlikely), but that is nothing to do with copyright law and is most unlikely to affect the ownership of copyright once the photo' has been taken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
richmond, no-o-o-ooo. The abbreviation has become a word in its own right. Those apostrophes look downright anal. Sorry. But you carry on, if it gives you pleasure, I wouldn't dream of harassing you. But, back on topic, I agree with the substance of what you've said, though I too know very little about copyright law. I can't believe that that it matters where the photo was taken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle, I have no problem with the suggestion that 'photo' is now a word in it's own right, but I don't think that the apostrophe (in the right place) is inappropriate. The word 'photograph' is still widely used, after all. As for being anal, probably guilty as charged.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Fri 26-06-09 13:06; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
flangesax, you cannot take pictures in a private place without permission - though in some cases it is pretty much implicit - and the property owner may well want you to have the permission of individuals before you take their pictures. Personally, from what I have read, many schools seem to have lost all sense of proportion. I am glad when my children were at school it was thought quite natural that parents would want to take photos there. This site seems to be well researched on photographers' legal rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, so what? A large organisation used 9 of my photos to make money. You have no idea, do you?
Bode Swiller, model release forms are not required for photos taken in public places.
el nombre, by simply taking the photo Shoogly has protected it. Putting something online does *not* put it in to the public domain for all to use at no charge. He's not suing - he's making a charge for his work. Pick & Mix at the cinema isn't protected - would you steal that?
flangesax, you don't pay for admission to a mountain - you are more than welcome to walk on to it without a lift pass. The subject of a photo has no claim on it where ever it's taken. When taking a photo on private land you must get permission from the land owner, not the people who will be in the photo.
richmond, I get paid to take photos and, as a freelancer, I retain copyright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
hyweljenkins, ok, i get your point. I can't claim to know much about the whole public domain thing but I don't quite agree with the pick and mix analogy. Either way, i still stand by my "It's one photo, who cares" statement. There's bigger problems in the world and this is really doing no harm at all. Shoogly should just forget he ever found out about it being used and get on with his life (which he appears to have done).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
el nombre, Shoogly should go after the money. Ski Direct is using his image to promote their business - they've broken the law. It makes no difference if he makes a living from photography or not. What would happen if every business started ripping off amateur photographers, holiday snappers, etc? Would that be right.
Whether there are bigger issues in the world is irrelevant, completely and utterly. If you house gets turned over and your Big Brother DVD Box Set is stolen and your dog is killed, would you report it to the police? No - of course not. There are bigger problems in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
el nombre, if someone approaches you to use a photo you've taken, and offers you £200 for the rights to use it, would you reject the offer and instead give it to them for nothing, or would you pocket the cash and make a mental note that the beer for your next trip is now paid for (or in much of France, that lunch is covered...)?
Now imagine they came to you and said sorry, we can't afford to pay, so we've used it anyway, so live with it. That would be an insult.
In this case, they've not even had the courtesy to insult the copyright owner directly - they've just either been so negligent that they haven't checked, or they've been so sneaky that they tried to use it and hoped they'd get away with it. That's a gross insult, and even if the cash isn't much, it serves two purposes - it makes them think again and educates them into their responsibilities, and it goes some way to keeping professional photographers in business. If every company used a freely stolen shot from the web for their advertising and got away with it, professional photography would take a huge hit, and be reduced to news, weddings and family portraits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| hyweljenkins wrote: |
| If you house gets turned over and your Big Brother DVD Box Set is stolen and your dog is killed, would you report it to the police? No - of course not. There are bigger problems in the world. |
Interesting, but again i disagree, if your big brother boxset was stolen you'd be better off but that's not the point. Having something taken away from you leaves you at a loss. In this case that hasn't happened.
I'm interested to see what happens with it though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
el nombre, the use of the photo implies that it has value because it's being used to generate revenue for the business, therefore, Shoogly has incurred a loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
el nombre, read this. No loss was incurred by the teenager who too the photo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| richmond, what's the point of model release forms then? |
To cover your back (as the photgrapher). It makes sure the model can't come back later and claim they had a verbal agreement that it wouldn't be published.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| flangesax wrote: |
| Quote: |
In the absence of any agreeement to the contrary, copyright in a photo' belongs to the owner of the film or other medium, presumably Shoogly. The subject, directed or not, has no automatic right.
|
Well according to UK law, this is only the case in a public place.
|
I think you are confusing the law on where you can freely take photographs, and the law on what rights the subjects of your photgraphs have.
You can only take a photo without permission in a public place, but in other places, so long as you have the permission of the model to take the photo in the first place, they have no automatic rights over their image.
| Quote: |
As a ski piste is owned land and you have to pay admission in the form of a ski pass then surely it is a private area??.... oohhh doean't this then mean you are supposed to seek permission from the owner too?? |
You don't have to pay admission in teh form of a ski pass, you only need that to use the lifts. I think access to ski areas is generally open, and so they probably would count as a public place for this law anyhow (but if going down this route, remember UK law wouldn't apply in this respect, since the location was not in the UK).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
alex_heney, I can take a photograph of you in B&Q as long as I have permission from an appropriate authority in the store. I don't need your permission to take it. In the UK, I wouldn't need a model release to use the photo, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| hyweljenkins wrote: |
| richmond, I get paid to take photos and, as a freelancer, I retain copyright. |
Quite so. If you were employed (as in being someone's employee) to take them, you probably wouldn't. It explains why your photos (or photo's, if you prefer) are so good.
It is clear to me that people shouldn't use other people's photographs without permission whether they're posted on the interweb or not. It is equally clear that people do exactly this, out of ignorance, laziness or meaness. If you put your photos on the interweb and don't take serious steps to prevent copying, it's a bit daft to moan when someone pinches them. It's a bit like leaving your Merc in Peckham with the doors open and the key in the ignition; pinching it will still be a crime, but you won't get much sympathy at Peckham nick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'll pay the owner of the photo £200 if everyone else quits this inane discussion about copyright law!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DrE, you should have said you were a director of Ski Direct, rather than trying to wriggle out through the back door 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
I think Ski direct should have nicked a better photograph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
flangesax, you don't pay for admission to a mountain - you are more than welcome to walk on to it without a lift pass.
|
I think all the land owners and farmers in Austria might have a little something to say about that!
Have you ever been to a ski area in the summer?
Flachau is basically owned by Family Huber... it is in no way a public place!
But all this was just a comment... it has no relevence to the copyright issues in the OP.
| Quote: |
I can take a photograph of you in B&Q as long as I have permission from an appropriate authority in the store. I don't need your permission to take it. In the UK, I wouldn't need a model release to use the photo, either.
|
that's because it is a private place... and if it was used as an ad then i do hope they have made me sign a model release otherwise I want my cash!!
Anyhow.... I'm off to answer my 'phone as i am expecting a call from a 'cello player about studying for their music A' level 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| flangesax wrote: |
| Quote: |
I can take a photograph of you in B&Q as long as I have permission from an appropriate authority in the store. I don't need your permission to take it. In the UK, I wouldn't need a model release to use the photo, either.
|
that's because it is a private place... and if it was used as an ad then i do hope they have made me sign a model release otherwise I want my cash!! |
Me too, but unfortunately we wouldn't be entitled to any, private place, public place or anywhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| flangesax wrote: |
| ....I think all the land owners and farmers in Austria might have a little something to say about that!..... |
No problem skinning up at St Anton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles.... I am a little confused. In my area all of the ski-pistes are on private land owned by either the farmers or the lift companies.
That is my point. The areas are not public, they are privately owned.
Ski-pass or no ski-pass, skins or shoes; you are on private land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
flangesax, of course you are. I merely responded to your point that you doubted that Austrian landowners would not welcome walkers without a lift pass. As this thread is about a skiing photograph, I observed that I had had no problem walking up the hill (on skins) without a pass being at issue. Summer walking is doubtless a different matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| DrE wrote: |
| i'll pay the owner of the photo £200 if everyone else quits this inane discussion about copyright law! |
I would pay everyone (£2) to keep posting on this thread. It's the most entertaining thread and it's somewhat educational too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Bode, well said! I was thinking the same, but to new to dare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
thebrownslug, ah my friend, you are suffering from Post Count Inferiority Disorder. There is no cure other than to post a lot. So, be bold, I'm sure you can come up with something more entertaining and edgy than half the pedantic dim wits on here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Bode Yes, know what your saying, trouble is I posted a good one about a dogs head with no body eating cheese - it was removed!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| .....I'm sure you can come up with something more entertaining and edgy than half the pedantic dim wits on here. |
Whose words you read avidly so that you can then demonstrate your superior wit, O Master.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
achilles, it has gone a bit off topic now...
Summer or winter is irrelevent.
Ski areas are private land (except for the few in national parks etc...)
If you are touring without a lift pass, the lift company are well within their rights to chuck you off the mountain.... but of course this doesn't happen as a tourer can bring as much money to the tourist industry as a lift pass holder and most tourers will probably have a ski pass anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| flangesax wrote: |
achilles.... I am a little confused. In my area all of the ski-pistes are on private land owned by either the farmers or the lift companies.
That is my point. The areas are not public, they are privately owned.
Ski-pass or no ski-pass, skins or shoes; you are on private land. |
But in the usual UK legal meaning of the word, they are "public places". Anywhere that the public have general access to is a "public place" so far as this type of law is concerned, even though it is privately owned.
In fact almost all land in the UK is "private" in the sense of being owned by somebody or some organisation. "Common land" is a very small proportion of the total land around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is great:) but come on OP, spill the beans...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xyzpaul, probably busy enjoying a lavish free holiday in Barbados courtesy of CoOp Travel
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
...rather a weekend at Butlins for that photo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it was the last picture ever taken of Michael Jackson skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
