photography documentaries
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Peter on 23 Jun 2010 14:04 "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message news:2010062318071770-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid... > > Three genuine questions... > > 1. If I make one of my photos available on a public website (as I would if > I wanted a critique of it), have I published it and/or given up some of my > rights? Depends on the rules you agree to by posting. On some sites you give the site owner an exclusive or non-exclusive right to reproduce on others you don't. Read the posting agreement carefully. > > The reason I ask is this: if I later wish to submit the photo for > publication or make prints available for sale, I expect to be asked "Has > this image already been published? Is it available for sale anywhere?" > along with other questions to establish my authenticity. > Answer truthfully in accordance with the above. If you are in doubt, disclose and explain. > 2. If I have one of my photos published in, say, a journal or have sold it > via a local gallery/shop or it hangs on the wall of a local coffee shop: > would it be unkind/unfair to later put the image on a public website? > Most people purchasing a photo do not expect a one of a kind image, unless you tell them that it is the only print that has been made. Some artists sell limited edtion prints. Again, disclose truthfully and there will not be grounds for complant. > My gut feeling is that the answer is yes to both questions. I realize the > answer may depend on the pixel size of the image I put on a website e.g. a > 200x200 pixel image is not capable producing a large print, which leads > to: > > 3. What is the maximum image size to put on a website such that one can > still keep "ownership" of the photo? Again, I realize that an image of a > sheet of white paper only needs one pixel to make a huge print. > > Feedback will be greatly appreciated. No matter what size you put on the web, you still retain ownership, unless you specifically grant rights. Don't rely on the "logic" of a thief/troll. In any event protect your rights with some form of copyright notice. -- Peter
From: Pete on 23 Jun 2010 18:44 On 2010-06-23 18:43:04 +0100, sobriquet said: > On 23 jun, 19:07, Pete <available.on.requ...(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >> On 2010-06-23 15:36:40 +0100, sobriquet said: >> >>> <snipped for brevity> >>> Then you have to keep your photos of the internet. If you scatter your >>> valuable possessions out on the streets wherever you go, you can't >>> expect the police to help protect your possessions. Same goes for >>> photos. If you don't want anyone taking your photos without your >>> permission then you shouldn't allow them to end up in the hands of >>> others. If you simply keep your photos to yourself, nobody will break >>> into your house to obtain a copy of your photos to share with others. >> >> Three genuine questions... >> >> 1. If I make one of my photos available on a public website (as I would >> if I wanted a critique of it), have I published it and/or given up some >> of my rights? > > That depends on a reasonable interpretation of 'rights'. It doesn't > mean you get to impose arbitrary terms and conditions on what people > are allowed to do with a picture that they encounter on the internet > if you put your own pictures online somewhere. > It would be silly to suppose you can dictate that they can't retain a > copy of your picture or they can't share such a copy with others. > That's equally silly as a painter who sells a painting and expects he > has the right to impose arbitrary restrictions on the way the new > owner of the painting is allowed to enjoy that work of art, like > saying the painting is not allowed to be hung in front of a window > where it's visible from the street or that the owner is not allowed to > take a picture of the painting or allow anyone to take a picture of > the painting. Thanks, that's exactly what I'm trying to learn: a reasonable interpretation of 'rights'. I've said before about being very surprised to read in books "This book must not be lent, resold" etc. etc. Libraries lend us books and I can buy them in second-hand bookshops. The rights claimed in these books appear to be unreasonable. If people wanted to share my pictures with others I would be very pleased. > On the other hand, if people try to sell your picture or claim they > have made it, or they use your picture in some way to make money > without consulting the original photographer in advance about this, I > think it becomes a different matter. That's more like a genuine rip- > off on the creative efforts of someone else. But if you share their > stuff with others via the internet without any commercial interests > whatsoever, it's a different issue and you don't really infringe on > their right or ability to make a living from their creative skills. > A photographer or artist can always decide to show his work in a > private venue where he obviously does have the right to prohibit > people from taking pictures of his work in order to prevent it from > ending up in the hands of others where the original photographer or > artist is practically unable to impose controls on how their creative > output is used or shared. Yep. I would be unhappy if one of my pictures was used in that way and I certainly don't have the resources to take action if it was. >> The reason I ask is this: if I later wish to submit the photo for >> publication or make prints available for sale, I expect to be asked >> "Has this image already been published? Is it available for sale >> anywhere?" along with other questions to establish my authenticity. > > You can say the picture has been available online (perhaps a reduced > version, where you retain the original or the raw files in full > resolution). > Most photographers don't share their raw files online, so they always > are able to proof they were the original creators of a picture if > someone tries to exploit their work financially without negotiating > the terms of such a commercial deal in advance with the original > creator of the work (in order to allow them a fair share of the > profits). That makes a lot of sense to me. I have shared full res. JPEGs with members of my family and, of course, companies who have turned them into prints. The chance of being ripped-off is quite low. Risk assessment is not a term I like, but it is important. Before entering into a commercial contract/deal, each side must assess the risks (costs) of the other side not honouring the agreement. >> 2. If I have one of my photos published in, say, a journal or have sold >> it via a local gallery/shop or it hangs on the wall of a local coffee >> shop: would it be unkind/unfair to later put the image on a public >> website? > > I don't see how one necessarily detracts from the other. But if you > sell pictures it does make > sense to tell the new owner about the status of your picture regarding > the number of copies > that have been sold or might be sold in the future. You might agree to > sell pictures exclusively and then it would be fair not to sell the > pictures to others or give them away, but you can also sell them to > everyone, just like many people can buy and enjoy the same music and > it doesn't really detract from the pleasure that a copy of the music > is available to many people, so it's not a somewhat more exclusive > experience like visiting a live concert of music. Yep. I expect myself to know all the answers before I do something and forget that I can learn the answers as I go along via discussion. > Imagine a musician records music and he sells only a limited number of > copies, say 100 copies, I don't see how these people are going to > enjoy their copy more, knowing that only 100 copies have been sold or > whether they would enjoy it to the same degree knowing that > 100.000.000 copies have been sold. Limited edition marketing isn't dead yet. Can't remember the name for this psychological technique; just wish it was history. There will always be a cosy feeling for "I have the only one." or "I have one of the only 10000." >> My gut feeling is that the answer is yes to both questions. I realize >> the answer may depend on the pixel size of the image I put on a website >> e.g. a 200x200 pixel image is not capable producing a large print, >> which leads to: >> >> 3. What is the maximum image size to put on a website such that one can >> still keep "ownership" of the photo? Again, I realize that an image of >> a sheet of white paper only needs one pixel to make a huge print. > > That depends on technological developments and the way they (ought to) > influence > our interpretation of rights associated with the creation of digital > content (like the right to be acknowledged for your efforts in case > you make significant contributions to the pool of creations in human > culture). > I would say it's fine if an photographer would take pictures at 12 to > 24 megapixel and they share 1 to 5 megapixel versions for people to > share online as free publicity which might motivate people to pay for > an exhibit of new work that the photographer can later make available > online (or at the same time if he expects people to enjoy fine quality > prints of his work anyway and can easily make in income that way or by > selling signed printed pictures). That is very helpful. I can experiment with shared image resolution to ensure it cannot match the original work. I hadn't even thought about the aspects of technological developments, publicity, or even signing my own work. This far, my work would have been rejected if it had my signature on the image. Something to aim for next year, perhaps. Thank you for taking the time to reply. -- Pete
From: Pete on 23 Jun 2010 19:01 On 2010-06-23 19:04:53 +0100, Peter said: > "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message > news:2010062318071770-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid... > >> >> Three genuine questions... >> >> 1. If I make one of my photos available on a public website (as I would >> if I wanted a critique of it), have I published it and/or given up some >> of my rights? > > Depends on the rules you agree to by posting. On some sites you give > the site owner an exclusive or non-exclusive right to reproduce on > others you don't. Read the posting agreement carefully. > > >> >> The reason I ask is this: if I later wish to submit the photo for >> publication or make prints available for sale, I expect to be asked >> "Has this image already been published? Is it available for sale >> anywhere?" along with other questions to establish my authenticity. >> > > Answer truthfully in accordance with the above. If you are in doubt, > disclose and explain. > > >> 2. If I have one of my photos published in, say, a journal or have sold >> it via a local gallery/shop or it hangs on the wall of a local coffee >> shop: would it be unkind/unfair to later put the image on a public >> website? >> > > Most people purchasing a photo do not expect a one of a kind image, > unless you tell them that it is the only print that has been made. > Some artists sell limited edtion prints. Again, disclose truthfully and > there will not be grounds for complant. > >> My gut feeling is that the answer is yes to both questions. I realize >> the answer may depend on the pixel size of the image I put on a website >> e.g. a 200x200 pixel image is not capable producing a large print, >> which leads to: >> >> 3. What is the maximum image size to put on a website such that one can >> still keep "ownership" of the photo? Again, I realize that an image of >> a sheet of white paper only needs one pixel to make a huge print. >> >> Feedback will be greatly appreciated. > > No matter what size you put on the web, you still retain ownership, > unless you specifically grant rights. Don't rely on the "logic" of a > thief/troll. In any event protect your rights with some form of > copyright notice. Thanks Peter, good points. Total honesty is the best policy combined with asking questions, just trying to cover and discover what may come up in the future. Fighting a case of theft entails a great deal of expense with no guarantee of winning. It can be very difficult to protect work with a copyright notice. From what I have read, both the (c) and the copyright symbol are meaningless in many countries, as is the phrase "all rights reserved". I got the impression that "Copyright <year> by <author>" is the most widely accepted, but the slightest error renders it meaningless. -- Pete
From: sobriquet on 23 Jun 2010 19:39 On 24 jun, 01:01, Pete <available.on.requ...(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > On 2010-06-23 19:04:53 +0100, Peter said: > > > > > > > "Pete" <available.on.requ...(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message > >news:2010062318071770-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid... > > >> Three genuine questions... > > >> 1. If I make one of my photos available on a public website (as I would > >> if I wanted a critique of it), have I published it and/or given up some > >> of my rights? > > > Depends on the rules you agree to by posting. On some sites you give > > the site owner an exclusive or non-exclusive right to reproduce on > > others you don't. Read the posting agreement carefully. > > >> The reason I ask is this: if I later wish to submit the photo for > >> publication or make prints available for sale, I expect to be asked > >> "Has this image already been published? Is it available for sale > >> anywhere?" along with other questions to establish my authenticity. > > > Answer truthfully in accordance with the above. If you are in doubt, > > disclose and explain. > > >> 2. If I have one of my photos published in, say, a journal or have sold > >> it via a local gallery/shop or it hangs on the wall of a local coffee > >> shop: would it be unkind/unfair to later put the image on a public > >> website? > > > Most people purchasing a photo do not expect a one of a kind image, > > unless you tell them that it is the only print that has been made. > > Some artists sell limited edtion prints. Again, disclose truthfully and > > there will not be grounds for complant. > > >> My gut feeling is that the answer is yes to both questions. I realize > >> the answer may depend on the pixel size of the image I put on a website > >> e.g. a 200x200 pixel image is not capable producing a large print, > >> which leads to: > > >> 3. What is the maximum image size to put on a website such that one can > >> still keep "ownership" of the photo? Again, I realize that an image of > >> a sheet of white paper only needs one pixel to make a huge print. > > >> Feedback will be greatly appreciated. > > > No matter what size you put on the web, you still retain ownership, > > unless you specifically grant rights. Don't rely on the "logic" of a > > thief/troll. In any event protect your rights with some form of > > copyright notice. > > Thanks Peter, good points. > > Total honesty is the best policy combined with asking questions, just > trying to cover and discover what may come up in the future. Fighting a > case of theft entails a great deal of expense with no guarantee of > winning. > > It can be very difficult to protect work with a copyright notice. From > what I have read, both the (c) and the copyright symbol are meaningless > in many countries, as is the phrase "all rights reserved". I got the > impression that "Copyright <year> by <author>" is the most widely > accepted, but the slightest error renders it meaningless. > > -- > Pete It's meaningless anyway, as I happen to live in a country where I'm legally allowed to make a copy of a picture for personal use, regardless of any copyright notice. It might be illegal for me to share it with others subsequently, but in practice people can exchange pictures via p2p without any significant chance they will face legal consequences for ignoring spurious intellectual property claims. So in practice, photographers have no effective way to prevent others from sharing their pictures once they put them online and allow a copy to end up in the hands of others.
From: sobriquet on 23 Jun 2010 20:18
On 24 jun, 02:06, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-23 16:39:52 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: > > > > > > > On 24 jun, 01:01, Pete <available.on.requ...(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2010-06-23 19:04:53 +0100, Peter said: > > >>> "Pete" <available.on.requ...(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message > >>>news:2010062318071770-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid... > > >>>> Three genuine questions... > > >>>> 1. If I make one of my photos available on a public website (as I woul > > d > >>>> if I wanted a critique of it), have I published it and/or given up som > > e > >>>> of my rights? > > >>> Depends on the rules you agree to by posting. On some sites you give > >>> the site owner an exclusive or non-exclusive right to reproduce on > >>> others you don't. Read the posting agreement carefully. > > >>>> The reason I ask is this: if I later wish to submit the photo for > >>>> publication or make prints available for sale, I expect to be asked > >>>> "Has this image already been published? Is it available for sale > >>>> anywhere?" along with other questions to establish my authenticity. > > >>> Answer truthfully in accordance with the above. If you are in doubt, > >>> disclose and explain. > > >>>> 2. If I have one of my photos published in, say, a journal or have sol > > d > >>>> it via a local gallery/shop or it hangs on the wall of a local coffee > >>>> shop: would it be unkind/unfair to later put the image on a public > >>>> website? > > >>> Most people purchasing a photo do not expect a one of a kind image, > >>> unless you tell them that it is the only print that has been made. > >>> Some artists sell limited edtion prints. Again, disclose truthfully and > >>> there will not be grounds for complant. > > >>>> My gut feeling is that the answer is yes to both questions. I realize > >>>> the answer may depend on the pixel size of the image I put on a websit > > e > >>>> e.g. a 200x200 pixel image is not capable producing a large print, > >>>> which leads to: > > >>>> 3. What is the maximum image size to put on a website such that one ca > > n > >>>> still keep "ownership" of the photo? Again, I realize that an image of > >>>> a sheet of white paper only needs one pixel to make a huge print. > > >>>> Feedback will be greatly appreciated. > > >>> No matter what size you put on the web, you still retain ownership, > >>> unless you specifically grant rights. �Don't rely on the "logic" of a > >>> thief/troll. In any event protect your rights with some form of > >>> copyright notice. > > >> Thanks Peter, good points. > > >> Total honesty is the best policy combined with asking questions, just > >> trying to cover and discover what may come up in the future. Fighting a > >> case of theft entails a great deal of expense with no guarantee of > >> winning. > > >> It can be very difficult to protect work with a copyright notice. From > >> what I have read, both the (c) and the copyright symbol are meaningless > >> in many countries, as is the phrase "all rights reserved". I got the > >> impression that "Copyright <year> by <author>" is the most widely > >> accepted, but the slightest error renders it meaningless. > > >> -- > >> Pete > > > It's meaningless anyway, as I happen to live in a country where I'm > > legally allowed > > to make a copy of a picture for personal use, regardless of any > > copyright notice. > > > It might be illegal for me to share it with others subsequently, but > > in practice people > > can exchange pictures via p2p without any significant chance they will > > face legal consequences for ignoring spurious intellectual property > > claims. > > > So in practice, photographers have no effective way to prevent others > > from sharing their pictures once they put them online and allow a copy > > to end up in the hands of others. > > For once you are very close to being correct. > > For the most part there is no major issue with sharing images and > making copies of images others share until the ugly specter of money > comes into play. You have no right to market the original work of > others, unless you have bought that right. > > The problem comes when an image you, or I , or anyone else created, and > made available online is used by another individual, commercial entity, > or agency, and is either stolen outright, by being presented as > original work, and/or no credit/royaty is given to the actual owner of > the original image. > > For example; If one of your original images you have shared online, is > somehow used by an ad agency in a successful campaign, without > licensing paid to you, your permission, or credit given, you have > effectively had your rights of authorship violated and you would be > likely to succeed in collecting damages, if you had evidence of the > originality of your work. > > -- > Regards, > > Savageduck If you're bothered and have the cash to sue them. Also, what will you do if your pictures are used in china or some remote place? I think it's more practical to accept the fact that your pictures can't really be protected once you have put them online unless you are working for some kind of stock agency that can put some serious effort in the legal hassle. As an individual artist, you can only show your pictures in a private venue to avoid them ending up in the hands of others, but that might also have the downside that it limits your exposure. |