| Moderated by: chrisbet, |
|
|
| Copyright infringement question... | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted by iPlaid: Thu Jul 5th, 2012 14:28 | 1st Post |
So my brother got married last weekend and the wedding photographer had "calling cards" made and left them on the table for the guests to take and visit the website for the wedding shots. To my surprise, my photographs were on these calling cards...The cards have the photography company name and website all over the card and also had the company's "copyright statement" ((C) Copyright XXXXXX) on the back of the image. Now obviously I'm going to wait until my brother gets all of his photos before I do something about this, but what should/could I do? I don't know where this photographer got these images or if my brother even gave them to him, but the fact is that he used them and claimed the work as his. My copyright is in the digital exif information, so you would think that they would have seen that and known not to use my photos without my permission. What sort of recourse do I have with this? I feel like he is impersonating my work and causing my business harm by stealing my work...thoughts???
|
| Posted by Gilbert Sandberg: Thu Jul 5th, 2012 16:07 | 2nd Post |
| i, Do you mean that somebody has used your image(s) and put them out to the public , pretending it was his/hers? I am not current on USA laws, but I might do he following: -collect as many cards as possible -wait for the wedding photo's to be delivered (he/she may hold them hostage if you speak up before) -send an infingement notice, asking for as much money as you dare (be sure the shoot will not net any rewards after payment of that you ask for) -be sure to communicate all you do with your family member, feuds have started for lesser reasons Regards, Gilbert
|
| Posted by iPlaid: Thu Jul 5th, 2012 16:12 | 3rd Post |
| Indeed - they have used 2 of my images and put them out to the public (or at least all the guests of the wedding) indicating that the images were theirs. Their website and contact information was all over the photo and also had their copyright info printed on the back. I intend to talk with my brother about it today so as to give him the heads up, but yes, I will not do anything until they get their wedding photos. I wouldn't want to jeopardize that for them.
|
| Posted by jk: Thu Jul 5th, 2012 16:25 | 4th Post |
| I would talk to your brother and tell him how you feel. Also discuss with him what needs to be done and get him to also agree the next step with you. If he agrees with you on the next steps then collect you evidence and then go and confront the photographer and ask them to explain their actions. If this is not disputed then you need to ask the photographer about what reparation he can offer you for his misrepresentations. Maybe your brother gets his wedding pictures for free!
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Ed Matusik: Thu Jul 5th, 2012 16:48 | 5th Post |
| Certainly tell your brother, and have the evidence that the images are yours available. Also confront the "Pro" with the evidence and see how He/She reacts. However, if you never registered your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov), a reputable attorney will probably be reluctant to pursue any legal action for you unless you insist, and even then they will warn you that without a copyright registration number, your claims will probably be rejected by a court. - EdM.
|
| Posted by Eric: Thu Jul 5th, 2012 17:16 | 6th Post |
| Tell your brother but sit tight till he receives the photographs he requires. It's one thing to display another persons work as yours....its another thing to derive money from that misrepresentation. So I would recommend waiting until he HAS taken money before making a challenge. As others have said, a formal letter should be sent to him stating your payment terms for use of your images. A tour operator client received a bill last year for £10,000 for using two Getty images illegally on his website . They were minute pictures of destinations in Italy amongst other legal ones. (nothing to do with me by the way!) He eventually negotiated the figure down to £3000... But he still had to pay...and remove the images for the website. As always, it's how far you want to push the process...and how much realistically he will (be able to) pay. The least I would want is a free wedding for your brother. But It depends how much work he does and how long the images have been in his use. Which leads me to the most important question.... How did he get the images in the first place? Two or three years ago I did some shots of new trucks for a haulage company. They were really pleased with them and asked for files on a CD. Since I was paid for taking them and they were good clients I let them have them. 6weeks later on a visit they told me how proud they had been at the recent expo in London. It was the national launch of DAF trucks new models and projected 40foot across the stage was my photograph of my clients DAF truck. GULP! I asked if they paid him... answer...NO...but he was very proud about it so I didn't press the point. He felt it was great kudos and advertising for his company. I just felt WE missed out on a BIG payout. But thats life.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by richw: Fri Jul 6th, 2012 02:56 | 7th Post |
| If you go and have a look at Kelbytraining.com there are some courses in there relating what you can do in this situation relating to US law. As somebody else posted above in the US you have no recourse unless the copyrighted property is registered. The course is designed for professional photographers and is conducted by a US copyright lawyer. You can do three lessons for free at the website, but pay $19 per month for access to more, might be worth it and there are some pretty good courses you can look at for the rest of the month.
|
| Posted by jk: Fri Jul 6th, 2012 03:16 | 8th Post |
Ed Matusik wrote:Certainly tell your brother, and have the evidence that the images are yours available. Also confront the "Pro" with the evidence and see how He/She reacts. However, if you never registered your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov), a reputable attorney will probably be reluctant to pursue any legal action for you unless you insist, and even then they will warn you that without a copyright registration number, your claims will probably be rejected by a court. - EdM. This shows how unhelpful the law is in these cases. I believe in UK the breach of copyright is the use of materials for which you have not paid or have rights to use. It is more akin to theft rather than any formal registration of ownership. Proof of ownership is pretty easy with film but less easy (but still relatively easy)with digital. The difficulty come when you have commissioned work like in Eric's case as copyright is usually transferred when payment is made by the customer, unless the customer has agreed differently. Wedding and portrait/studio photography is a different game again which is why it is recommended that you have a contract for each customer. Otherwise you only get payment for taking the pictures not the subsequent prints as the images are deemed to be commissioned. Sometimes it pays to be careful!
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Ed Matusik: Fri Jul 6th, 2012 06:34 | 9th Post |
| JK, the law goes a lot further than just the original work, it states that the original plus any "derivatives" are covered. Derivatives is interpreted broadly to cover cropping, using any portion of the image or copying the image or any portion of it to include drawings made from it. But, giving this coverage and proving it is the devil in the details. I've had people tell me that they downloaded one of my images so they could use it or parts of it to make a painting. Whether or not they then sold their copy of my work I'll never know. - EdM
|
| Posted by jk: Sat Jul 7th, 2012 03:13 | 10th Post |
| Yes that is true Ed., the copyright covers all or part of the image. Derivatives or similar shots are a much more difficult area as proven by a recent case in UK about a use of a B&W image of a London Bus that has been recoloured to show only the bus in colour. This area is very subjuctive and could tie up a herd of laywers for a century!
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Ed Matusik: Sat Jul 7th, 2012 10:17 | 11th Post |
jk wrote: Yes that is true Ed., the copyright covers all or part of the image. Unless you captured an exceptionally valuable image, entering into the legal system to recoup monies will, in the long run, cost you more that what you win (if anything, that is). This virtual media is both the bane and the saving of every photographer. We all are driven to want to show our stuff, but ultimately loose control of it the second it's posted. The best defense, is, as you and others have remarked, small file sizes and no more than 72 ppi resolution. At least copied digital info will limit print size. But this is digressing from the original question which doesn't involve someone downloading a posted image. - EdM 3:)
|
| Posted by Eric: Sat Jul 7th, 2012 14:06 | 12th Post |
Ed Matusik wrote:jk wrote:Yes that is true Ed., the copyright covers all or part of the image. That may be the harsh reality when someone contests the charge. But as I say, that didnt stop Getty images pursuing two rather average shots of Venice that my client had grabbed off the Internet and used on his website. Maybe he should have had the nerve to say "no way" and ignored them. But faced with a threat of this magnitude, he felt he had to enter into some negotiation, once it was pointed out he had done something wrong. Faced with an inability to win my rightful compensation I would be inclined to spend some money on a large advert in the regional newspapers the perpetrators business covered. Using the same image and making a clear statement of ownership, while pointing out all other users are fraudulent! 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Sat Jul 7th, 2012 14:07 | 13th Post |
Eric wrote:Ed Matusik wrote: |
| Posted by Ed Matusik: Sat Jul 7th, 2012 15:04 | 14th Post |
| It certainly would be an unremovable burr under one's saddle to have it blatantly happen. But I would never enter into any potentially volatile exchanges unless I had a good attorney checking every exchange. As JK professed to his limited knowledge of U.S. law, I too follow suit with my ignorance of U.K. law, but here, placing inflammatory advertisements in public media can lead to a slander suit being filed. If someone makes their living by photography or an associated trade, then copyright piracy has more adverse tones than someone who is a so-called, 'semi-pro,' or 'advanced amateur,' (and I must place myself in the latter category) having their work pirated. It may rankle, but it isn't taking any bread off the table. An attorney would be more likely to accept a case from a professional photographer than from a non-pro, unless, of course, the non-pro caught the 'shot-of-a-lifetime,' like Steven Hawking shaking hands with the first documented alien landing here to grab a bite of pizza. - EdM.
|
| Posted by Eric: Sat Jul 7th, 2012 17:29 | 15th Post |
Ed Matusik wrote:It certainly would be an unremovable burr under one's saddle to have it blatantly happen. But I would never enter into any potentially volatile exchanges unless I had a good attorney checking every exchange. As JK professed to his limited knowledge of U.S. law, I too follow suit with my ignorance of U.K. law, but here, placing inflammatory advertisements in public media can lead to a slander suit being filed. If someone makes their living by photography or an associated trade, then copyright piracy has more adverse tones than someone who is a so-called, 'semi-pro,' or 'advanced amateur,' (and I must place myself in the latter category) having their work pirated. It may rankle, but it isn't taking any bread off the table. An attorney would be more likely to accept a case from a professional photographer than from a non-pro, unless, of course, the non-pro caught the 'shot-of-a-lifetime,' like Steven Hawking shaking hands with the first documented alien landing here to grab a bite of pizza. - EdM. That's why I said appropriately worded. The truth isn't slander. And frankly it doesnt matter if you are a professional or an amateur...your possessions are your possessions. It's the principle more than the value. One of my associates created a website for a company who repeatedly avoided paying him. After 6months he modified the homepage with a simple message to the effect that the website was currently 'running under restrictions due to non payment of debts'. Surprising how quickly they paid to remove that stigma. No legal involvement necessary. But sorry ...I wouldn't standby and see my work stolen and used to the advantage of another without my consent, or even tacit agreement. I would find 'some way' to gain redress. But Andy has been quiet after his original posting???
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 03:01 | 16th Post |
| Eric, that is illegal in the UK. A criminal offence; section 40,1,a of the administration of justice act 1970 I think from memory... Amazing! Yes, I was right. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/31/part/V I came across this when somebody bounced a cheque on me and I 'mentioned' it to a mutual friend. I got my money but also a stern warning from the mutual friend, who happened to be a solicitor. That's why debt collectors use unmarked vans and letters are marked for addressee only, It is an offence to 'shame' a debtor, like the practice of pinning bounced cheques on shop notice boards. Had the debtor known about that, whoever placed that public notice on the website could have been in hot water.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 04:35 | 17th Post |
Ed Matusik wrote:jk wrote:Yes that is true Ed., the copyright covers all or part of the image. I think you have identied it correctly. We are caught between two rocks with a lot of fast moving water in between.  
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by jk: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 04:41 | 18th Post |
Robert wrote:Eric, that is illegal in the UK. A criminal offence; section 40,1,a of the administration of justice act 1970 I think from memory... Amazing! Yes, I was right. Yet another case of the law making an ass of itself. Section (a) is completely out of touch with reality and encourages the non-payer to continue with their unjust actions. A debt is a debt. Also it could be argued that the notice was a reminder and not calculated to cause alarm, distress or humiliation. Once again the law is poorly framed. It should say may cause or likely to rather than calculated. Calculated implies that there is a formula for causing alarm, distress or humiliation. Apart from brute force GBH some people are so thick skinned that nothing will cause alarm, much less distress or humiliation! Legislation really should be kept away from lawyers! They tend to frame it in a way that guarantees them business rather than delivery of justice.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by richw: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 07:36 | 19th Post |
jk wrote:A debt is a debt. Tell that to Iceland! 
|
| Posted by jk: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 09:43 | 20th Post |
richw wrote: jk wrote:  They or Greece wont be getting any of my money. They have had enough gifts!!
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Squarerigger: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 11:23 | 21st Post |
| Just thinking out loud here. There are several ways of trying to get even for the infraction. I agree unless you have registered your copyright, you are on less than firm ground. On the bright side, the law Robert quotes is open to a lot of interpretation. One has to prove harassment, etc. Very subjective! Anyway, and I can only speak to my little area of the country as we are dealing with local, state, and federal laws. There is small claims court where you can represent yourself and claim unauthorized use of property for gain. Dealing in civil court requires far less of a burden of proof than criminal. Bring in your data as to ownership of the pictures and let the other party try to prove the photos are theirs. I would let the local media know that there is an interesting case in court that date and they should attend as it would be a public service about a less than honest company. If you are just vindictive, as I can be  , just about every newspaper in my area has reporters waiting to help out the small guy in the streets. Give them the info about your photos and how this company is stealing your photos for their own gain and unwilling to acknowledge that they were yours or you had any right to compensation. If they are doing this to you, chances are it's more wide spread. Let that get out and they will have a hard time gaining clients in the future.You can also write a letter to the editor of the local papers and put the facts out in print abut the company. They would have to either hire an attorney to sue you or write in an explanation themselves. Happens all the time, it's called freedom of speech. If you have the facts to back up your side of the argument, you are on solid ground. If they are wrong, the less time in the press the better. Make sure you attempt one, and only one time, to rectify the wrong. You should use registered return receipt mail and have all copies notarized, free at most banks. You are the wronged party and need to act like one. Get all emotional and things go south. Just my thoughts, not having 98 percent of the evidence.
____________________ -------------------------------------------- Gary |
| Posted by Robert: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 11:27 | 22nd Post |
| Sounds very sensible Gary.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 14:12 | 23rd Post |
| Yes, I'd say that sounds like a fair approach. Also as you are not doing the publishing unless you tell lies then it would be the newspaper that gets any problems.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 14:50 | 24th Post |
Robert wrote:Eric, that is illegal in the UK. A criminal offence; section 40,1,a of the administration of justice act 1970 I think from memory... Amazing! Yes, I was right. Interesting. I guess in hindsight he should have just pulled the homepage and let the company suffer sales loss due to a 'technical breakdown'. I had one small company, who was owed money by another bigger company, present them with winding up papers ( effectively declaring them bankrupt) ....that worked quickly too! Lack of knowledge is a wonderful thing. 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 15:02 | 25th Post |
Squarerigger wrote:Just thinking out loud here. There are several ways of trying to get even for the infraction. I agree that a small claims approach would be a sensible route. This action alone introduces the 'stigma' I mentioned ..because having CCJs against you can impede your business operations. A letter to an editor and copied to the perpetrator may also be sufficient stimulus. Failing that you get Steve Sullivans cousins to make a house call. Speaking of which....where is Steve? And what has Andy decided to do about this problem, while we carry on debating?
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Squarerigger: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 15:13 | 26th Post |
| I was not going to bring up the "hands on" approach Eric, but sometimes a well placed 2x4 as the guilty party rounds the corner can be very attention getting.
____________________ -------------------------------------------- Gary |
| Posted by jk: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 15:15 | 27th Post |
| Gary, I cant believe you said that. I'm more in favour of the piano wire
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Squarerigger: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 15:24 | 28th Post |
You are correct Jonathan, one should not take the law into his own hands - so to speak 
____________________ -------------------------------------------- Gary |
| Posted by Eric: Mon Jul 9th, 2012 03:05 | 29th Post |
Squarerigger wrote: I was not going to bring up the "hands on" approach Eric, but sometimes a well placed 2x4 as the guilty party rounds the corner can be very attention getting.Not saying a word. 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by iPlaid: Mon Jul 9th, 2012 11:00 | 30th Post |
| Yes - sorry, I've been working the past few days and haven't had any time to read or reply! But yes, I do agree - it is my work and there should be some sort of compensation. He was advertising his business with my work - that is costing ME business as I am a pro with my own successful event photography business (weddings, equestrian events and sometimes even at the same time!). He's got a fairly large business and there is no doubt in my mind that he knows the consequenses of using someone else's work. I will go after him, but as I stated, only after my brother receives his photos from the wedding. I don't want to jeopardize those images for him.
|
| Posted by iPlaid: Mon Jul 9th, 2012 11:06 | 31st Post |
| I like the idea of small claims court, but perhaps I should send a nice letter along with an invoice first? If he fails to pay up (and offer sincere apologies in addition) then, I can certainly take that step. Fortunately, there are a couple lawyers in the family that I married in to, so if necesary, I can always contact them - even though they'd charge me!
|
| Posted by jk: Mon Jul 9th, 2012 12:19 | 32nd Post |
iPlaid wrote: I like the idea of small claims court, but perhaps I should send a nice letter along with an invoice first? If he fails to pay up (and offer sincere apologies in addition) then, I can certainly take that step. Fortunately, there are a couple lawyers in the family that I married in to, so if necesary, I can always contact them - even though they'd charge me!Professional fees are tax deductable
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Squarerigger: Mon Jul 9th, 2012 13:38 | 33rd Post |
iPlaid wrote:I like the idea of small claims court, but perhaps I should send a nice letter along with an invoice first? If he fails to pay up (and offer sincere apologies in addition) then, I can certainly take that step. Fortunately, there are a couple lawyers in the family that I married in to, so if necesary, I can always contact them - even though they'd charge me! Before small claims court, you should seek payment via registered mail to prove you have taken the first step and been refused. then file with the court.
____________________ -------------------------------------------- Gary |
| Posted by Ed Matusik: Mon Jul 9th, 2012 14:06 | 34th Post |
| Gary's right, a well-worded letter detailing the facts of the infringement and suggesting some form of settlement would do wonders if it should go further. Send it certified mail. Leaving a paper trail is important. - EdM.
|
| Posted by iPlaid: Mon Jul 9th, 2012 14:26 | 35th Post |
| Sounds good - I will begin crafting my letter and invoice! Thanks guys!
|
| Posted by Dave Groen: Mon Jul 9th, 2012 22:03 | 36th Post |
| I had a situation where someone was making t-shirts using one of my images. I sent them a letter stating this: (I have replaced some specific info with myphoto, yourshirt, yourwebsite, etc). To Whom It May Concern: It has come to my attention that you have made an unauthorized use of my copyrighted work entitled myphoto.jpg ("the Work") in the preparation of a work derived therefrom. I have reserved all rights in the Work, which was first published in March 2011 at mywebsite.com. A copy of the Work is shown below. Your shirt entitled yourshirt which appears on your web site at yourwebsite.com (also shown below), clearly used the Work as its basis. You neither asked for nor received permission to use the Work as the basis for yourshirt. Therefore, I believe you have willfully infringed my rights under 17 USC Section 101, et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $100,000. I demand that you immediately pay my standard usage fee, which is $500.00 for small quantity usage (yourshirt only) or $1000.00 for unlimited usage. If unlimited usage is desired, a high-resolution image file shall be delivered by me upon payment. Until then you must immediately cease the use and distribution of all infringing works derived from the Work, and desist from this or any other infringement of my rights in the future. If I have not received an affirmative response and payment from you by August xx, 2012 indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, I shall consider taking the full legal remedies available to rectify this situation. Sincerely, David S. Groen They paid me. No lawyers got involved, no small claims court. Feel free to plagiarize my letter. I won't sue you. I had not registered my work with the copyright office. The copyright to any original work belongs to the person who created it whether you register it or not. Registration does make it easier if you end up in court, though. I had my prior publication as proof of my ownership.
____________________ I started out with nothing and still have most of it left |
| Posted by Eric: Tue Jul 10th, 2012 05:07 | 37th Post |
Dave Groen wrote: I had a situation where someone was making t-shirts using one of my images. I sent them a letter stating this: (I have replaced some specific info with myphoto, yourshirt, yourwebsite, etc).Sounds convincing and forceful enough to me! I even started writing a cheque to you ....and I havent done anything!! 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Squarerigger: Tue Jul 10th, 2012 11:36 | 38th Post |
Good letter Dave and great results 
____________________ -------------------------------------------- Gary |
| Posted by Squarerigger: Tue Jul 10th, 2012 13:59 | 39th Post |
| I feel obligated to make an observation. Dave's letter is great, but before everyone goes out and makes up their own, as a retired magistrate, I should give one word of caution. If your letter gets results, then it is perfect. If, on the other hand, it does not get good results and you decide to take it to court, please make sure everything you put in the letter is true. Now I can only speak for matters brought up before me, and 99 percent were criminal vs civil, all evidence (letter included) are examined for facts. If you present evidence which is not factual, I then question your integrity. If I question your integrity, its is very hard tow win it back. This used to go equal for citizens and police alike in my case. So, while this was a quirk of mine, I should hope it applies to many judicial officers. Just my two cents worth. Please don't go making up facts as they may come back to haunt you.
____________________ -------------------------------------------- Gary |
| Posted by jk: Wed Jul 11th, 2012 04:30 | 40th Post |
Dave Groen wrote:I had a situation where someone was making t-shirts using one of my images. I sent them a letter stating this: (I have replaced some specific info with myphoto, yourshirt, yourwebsite, etc). Good letter Dave. I known in UK there is no need to register copyright but I didnt know if this was the case in USA. Obviously if you havent registered the copyright if you were to go to court the opening statement with the judge would be around establishment of the copyright and its proof.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Ed Matusik: Wed Jul 11th, 2012 09:35 | 41st Post |
| Very professional and legalistic composition. Kelby training, as was mention by someone earlier in this discussion, has a very good lesson on U.S. copyright rights and procedures. - EdM
|
| Posted by blackfox: Fri Jul 13th, 2012 18:03 | 42nd Post |
| according to this we may well have something to really worry about shortly http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/02/govt_copyright_white_paper/ if it gets the go ahead we could all be stuffed in the u.k
|
| Posted by Eric: Fri Jul 13th, 2012 18:18 | 43rd Post |
blackfox wrote:according to this we may well have something to really worry about shortly It makes you want to cry, sometimes....scream at others. As if, with the state of the nation, they have nothing else to do with their time. Am I glad that my professional career is coming to an end?
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Sat Jul 14th, 2012 04:17 | 44th Post |
| A similar law was proposed recently for music copyright and revenues. Performing artists are up in arms. This is all part of the 'pressures' exerted by big business on government. What is required is some rioting (non-destructive but disruptive) in the streets. Not targeted at shops but at corporate HQs of big multinationals, merchant banks (not high street) and insurance companies. Serious reform is required but it wont happen without agitation. Until major disruption occurs the politicians dont care a tinkers cuss. Of course in UK the best time would be in the next three weeks as this causes maximum embarrassment and disruption to the government. In USA I suggest late October, just before the elections. Unfortunately most people have their eyes too close to the grindstone to pay all the debt they have incurred rather than raising their eyes.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Ray Ninness: Thu Jul 19th, 2012 20:48 | 45th Post |
iPlaid wrote: Sounds good - I will begin crafting my letter and invoice! Thanks guys! Not to be a wet blanket, but the first question is how did he get your images??? I am assuming that they are from someone's wedding, shot previously to you brothers. How did he get your images??? Could both of you have shot the same images at another wedding, say standing side by side??? Just curious???
____________________ Ray Ninness F8Photos.com Bedford, New Hampshire USA |
| Posted by Ed Matusik: Fri Jul 20th, 2012 06:35 | 46th Post |
| That's a very good point Ray. Two years ago, we were in Alaska along with a professional wildlife photographer from the Czech republic. When we got home, we went to his website and looked at the photos he took at the same time we were photographing. There were some which were identical to our captured images. No copyright imfringement, just similarites in time, place, and angles. - EdM
|
| Posted by Ray Ninness: Fri Jul 20th, 2012 08:09 | 47th Post |
Ed Matusik wrote: That's a very good point Ray. Two years ago, we were in Alaska along with a professional wildlife photographer from the Czech republic. When we got home, we went to his website and looked at the photos he took at the same time we were photographing. There were some which were identical to our captured images. No copyright imfringement, just similarites in time, place, and angles. - EdMWhen I was a Wedding shooter, several times I had Aunt Matilda, catch the same image, that I shot. The worse part is when she caught the Bride with both her eyes open and I didn't :-(
____________________ Ray Ninness F8Photos.com Bedford, New Hampshire USA |
| Posted by Eric: Fri Jul 20th, 2012 14:29 | 48th Post |
Ray Ninness wrote: iPlaid wrote:I asked that question ( as yet unanswered) several posts back.Sounds good - I will begin crafting my letter and invoice! Thanks guys! I suspect it would have to be a big coincidence that HE as an 'off-duty' wedding photographer happened to be standing next to Andy 'on-duty' as a wedding photographer to take the identical shot. Most wedding snappers I know would have chatted to the working shooter ...if only to tell him (annoying though it is) that he too was a 'pro'. Nice to see you posting again Ray. Where you been hiding?
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Sat Jul 21st, 2012 02:59 | 49th Post |
Ray Ninness wrote: Ed Matusik wrote:That's a very good point Ray. Two years ago, we were in Alaska along with a professional wildlife photographer from the Czech republic. When we got home, we went to his website and looked at the photos he took at the same time we were photographing. There were some which were identical to our captured images. No copyright imfringement, just similarites in time, place, and angles. - EdMWhen I was a Wedding shooter, several times I had Aunt Matilda, catch the same image, that I shot. The worse part is when she caught the Bride with both her eyes open and I didn't :-( Never underestimate a good old'un. We will all be there some day. Nice to see you back Capt.B. Where is the avatar ?
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| This is topic ID = 245 | ||
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Photography > Photography > Copyright infringement question... | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1719 seconds (70% database + 30% PHP). 304 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1719 seconds (70% database + 30% PHP). 304 queries executed.