Photo Editing + Event Rights

[ahpoke]

Hi, just asking a few questions ^^ hope some1 could reply to them

1. just curious over the rights of photog, if a person takes ur unprocessed photo without ur permission and edits it using PS or some other software by adding stuff like borders+captions and then claims it as theirs without crediting you, so who does the photo eventually belong to? you or the person who photoshoped it?

2. as a amateur photog, you post pictures of a free entry event say 1 year ago, 1 year later u find out a shop is using that same photos on his pamphlets, to which u have not given permission for them to use. shld it be tolerated? coz i feel a bit pissed when he was using those photos, even if the targets in the photos were wearing the shop goods...

before these two issues happened i nv bothered watermarking my photos, but after that, i started doing so... shld i be angry? or not? i do the occasional newbie freelance but i never take money for it (just get a free meal or two)

 

[godzilla60]

Hi, just asking a few questions ^^ hope some1 could reply to them

1. just curious over the rights of photog, if a person takes ur unprocessed photo without ur permission and edits it using PS or some other software by adding stuff like borders+captions and then claims it as theirs without crediting you, so who does the photo eventually belong to? you or the person who photoshoped it?

2. as a amateur photog, you post pictures of a free entry event say 1 year ago, 1 year later u find out a shop is using that same photos on his pamphlets, to which u have not given permission for them to use. shld it be tolerated? coz i feel a bit pissed when he was using those photos, even if the targets in the photos were wearing the shop goods...

before these two issues happened i nv bothered watermarking my photos, but after that, i started doing so... shld i be angry? or not? i do the occasional newbie freelance but i never take money for it (just get a free meal or two)

mmm...interesting....wait til the master Vince comes in and clears the air....but here's something to fill your mind with:

1. the original photo belongs to you. however, the photoshopped photo doesn't belong to you technically..... he is not licensed to use that pic he photoshopped because you did not license him to use the original photo in the first place. However, you cannot take the photoshopped photo and claim it is yours because the modifications done belong to the guy who did it (that is assuming the borders, etc are his own works..)

2. you should feel generous.:sweatsm:..haha you have to decide whether to pursue an action against the shop or not, based on what resources you have at your disposal, how strong is your conviction, probability of achieving your desired effects, etc.....

disclaimer...I am not a lawyer...so these are not legal advice :sweat:

 

[ahpoke]

i dont think my convicition is that strong that i want to persue the matter in court, just a bit pissed >.> but i dunno if its "right" to feel a bit pissed off

and also its nt abt me claiming its mine, but does he have a right to claim that its his? (the photoshopped photo i mean ^^; sry to make it unclear)

 

[Edwin Francis]

Err... why are you asking others how you should feel? You feel the way you do. If you are pissed, so be it; if you don't care, hey that's fine too.
Dunno the local law for (1), but for (2), if you're sure the photos are yours, and you didn't somehow give up your rights, then someone has violated your rights. BTW, posting your photos online without a copyright notice is not the same as giving up your rights.
Where did they get a copy of your photos from anyway?
Perhaps you should write or speak to the business owner -- find out if where he got the images. If it were me, I'd politely (at first) ask for compensation. Up to you how far you wanna go of course. Who knows, you may get a client out of this

 

[ahpoke]

i guess im more like asking if i have the right to feel pissed at those ppl >.>

and if im nt wrong, giving up ur rights gotta be in writing or it dosent count... im sure as heck posting stuff online dosent give up my photography rights

 

[godzilla60]

i guess im more like asking if i have the right to feel pissed at those ppl >.>

and if im nt wrong, giving up ur rights gotta be in writing or it dosent count... im sure as heck posting stuff online dosent give up my photography rights

you definitely have the right to your emotion but your rights to the expression of that emotion may be limited... haha....anyway if u are talking about your rights, if you never give your rights or license to that guy, your rights may be violated.

giving up your rights can be in writing or verbally or implied. you can give your rights in writing, verbally or through any actions (or lack thereof) that imply you have consented to the use.... though black n white is usually more practical and easier to prove in court i guess

where is vince123123 when you need his comments...:sweatsm::sweatsm:

 

[catchlights]

Regarding local copyrights issue, many local photographers have miscoception, we do not follow the copyrights law of US..

I research the copyrights and ownerships issue on portrait photography, this is what I found

Ownership

Generally, the person who created the work (i.e. the author) owns the copyright in the work. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Some exceptions are:

Employment: If the work is created by an employee pursuant to the terms of his employment, the employer owns the copyright in the work.

Special situation for newspaper/magazine/periodical employees: Where an employee of a newspaper, magazine or periodical creates a literary, dramatic or artistic work pursuant to the terms of his employment and for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or periodical, the proprietor of the newspaper, magazine or periodical owns the copyright in respect of publication in or reproduction for the purpose of publication in any newspaper, magazine or periodical. The employee owns the remaining rights that make up the copyright bundle of exclusive rights. Commissioning: If a portrait/photograph/engraving is commissioned by another party, the commissioner owns the copyright in the work. If the portrait/photograph/engraving is required for a particular purpose, this purpose must be communicated to the commissioned party. While the commissioner is the copyright owner, the commissioned party has the right to stop others from doing any act comprised in the copyright, unless such act is done for the particular purpose for which the portrait/photograph/engraving is created.

For other types of commissioned works, ownership belongs to the commissioned party, unless the commissioner and commissioned party otherwise agree.

As mentioned in the introduction, the copyright owner may transfer his rights to another party or entity either partially or wholly.

taken from http://www.ipos.gov.sg/leftNav/cop/Ownership+and+Rights.htm

and also this

1. Copyright Copyright at Work
I provide photography services. Do I own the copyright to the photos that I take for my clients? If I don't, is there any way that I can own the copyright? I want to showcase the best photos in my website and brochures.

In general, clients who pay for your services own the copyright to the photos taken. However, you have limited rights in that if the photos are required for any particular purpose (e.g. a corporate client wants glamour shots of the senior management, to use in its annual report), your clients should tell you and you are entitled to prevent the photos from being used for other purposes.

In practice, however, many photographers have their own terms of engagement with clients. The parties are free to have their own agreement, which automatically overrides the above default position. Thus, for example, you and your clients can mutually agree that you will own the copyright in the photos but that your clients can use the photos for certain purposes; or that your clients own the copyright but you have the license to reproduce the photos in your website and brochures.

In simple words, photographers does not own the copyrights of the photographs, from the moment we collect money from the our customers, unless both parties enter an agreement to supersede the default law. (see the print in blue above)


the above text is my post (Post #10) at How now?

 

[catchlights]

Hi, just asking a few questions ^^ hope some1 could reply to them

1. just curious over the rights of photog, if a person takes ur unprocessed photo without ur permission and edits it using PS or some other software by adding stuff like borders+captions and then claims it as theirs without crediting you, so who does the photo eventually belong to? you or the person who photoshoped it?

2. as a amateur photog, you post pictures of a free entry event say 1 year ago, 1 year later u find out a shop is using that same photos on his pamphlets, to which u have not given permission for them to use. shld it be tolerated? coz i feel a bit pissed when he was using those photos, even if the targets in the photos were wearing the shop goods...

before these two issues happened i nv bothered watermarking my photos, but after that, i started doing so... shld i be angry? or not? i do the occasional newbie freelance but i never take money for it (just get a free meal or two)

for situation #1, so you do own the photo, since NOBODY pay you to take that photo, you can take action against that person for using your photo without permission.

for situation #2, you does own the photo too, if the shop does not compensate anything for your photo then and now, you can demand from compensation if you want to.

regarding whether the products or people belong to the company, does not make the company the rightful owner of the photos, UNLESS the company commissioned you to take the photo, or paid you for the photo later on.

see the quote below if you still not clear.

Ownership

Generally, the person who created the work (i.e. the author) owns the copyright in the work. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Some exceptions are:

Employment: If the work is created by an employee pursuant to the terms of his employment, the employer owns the copyright in the work.

 

[godzilla60]

Regarding local copyrights issue, many local photographers have miscoception, we do not follow the copyrights law of US..

I research the copyrights and ownerships issue on portrait photography, this is what I found

taken from http://www.ipos.gov.sg/leftNav/cop/Ownership+and+Rights.htm

and also this

In simple words, photographers does not own the copyrights of the photographs, from the moment we collect money from the our customers, unless both parties enter an agreement to supersede the default law. (see the print in blue above)


the above text is my post (Post #10) at How now?

i think that is true if both parties (photographer and client) enter into a commercial transaction and are agreeable that this is a commercial transaction (which may not necessarily be the case if either party did not think it is a commercial transaction but a favor for a friend/relative) and/or valuable consideration is given (e.g. money, benefits) in return for the photographer taking photos.

so..i think it depends on how the transaction was carried out and what was exchanged between the two parties. That the TS will only know. :sweat:

However, like what catchlights said, in a commercial arrangement (whether outsourced photographer or hired photographer), i think that as long as the photographer is using the hirer/employer's resources (including working time, equipment, etc) or is being paid (in cash or kind) and in the lack of any agreement that states the opposite, the copyright belongs to the hirer/employer...

so be careful when doing freelance/favor without agreements... :sweatsm:

 

[ahpoke]

at those two instances, the pictures were posted FOC in a forum (sgcafe), photobucket, and were looted from there.

as for my freelance, when i take a photo for them, i dont really care how they use the photo, bcoz its FOR THEM. and ive nv really done professional (in my case amature) freelance for money, just mostly favors, in which they gimme lunch (or dinner)

 

[catchlights]

at those two instances, the pictures were posted FOC in a forum (sgcafe), photobucket, and were looted from there.

as for my freelance, when i take a photo for them, i dont really care how they use the photo, bcoz its FOR THEM. and ive nv really done professional (in my case amature) freelance for money, just mostly favors, in which they gimme lunch (or dinner)

is this case, after your meal, you've kiss your photos good bye.

 

[godzilla60]

:bsmilie:

is this case, after your meal, you've kiss your photos good bye.

 

[Edwin Francis]

Granted you might not want to bother taking legal action against the shop in question -- it may not be worth it. However, as I suggested before, you may still want to let the business owner know of the situation, by writing him a letter, preferably including the offending pamphlet, with your photos highlighted.
There is the possibility that the owner does not know he didn't have the right to use the photos -- it could be an employee or a hired designer or agency who obtained the photos. If that's the case you'll be doing a lot of people (including the owner) a favour.
If he knew about the illegal photo use, then this could serve as a warning to him not to try it again. And he may want to appease you with a settlement of some sort. Who knows?
I'd suggest you don't mention things like being an amateur, or not expecting much back. They don't need to know that, and it might make them dismiss you offhand.
Explain the situation -- you are a photographer whose Intellectual Property (the photos) has been used in their marketing material, without permission or compensation. You could say that you appreciate that they like your work enough to include it in their pamphlet, but that you should have been consulted first.
Don't threaten or get aggressive, just inform in a neutral tone, and see what comes back.
They might offer you some compensation (which is better than you have now), or they might ignore you (no worse off). I believe you'll at least be doing all photographers a favour.
If you don't say/do anything, you might find your shots being used in other material down the line. How pissed off will you be then?

 

[soeypixels]

at those two instances, the pictures were posted FOC in a forum (sgcafe), photobucket, and were looted from there.

as for my freelance, when i take a photo for them, i dont really care how they use the photo, bcoz its FOR THEM. and ive nv really done professional (in my case amature) freelance for money, just mostly favors, in which they gimme lunch (or dinner)

like tat shoot food is better
at least 5* hotel

 

[godzilla60]

Granted you might not want to bother taking legal action against the shop in question -- it may not be worth it. However, as I suggested before, you may still want to let the business owner know of the situation, by writing him a letter, preferably including the offending pamphlet, with your photos highlighted.
There is the possibility that the owner does not know he didn't have the right to use the photos -- it could be an employee or a hired designer or agency who obtained the photos. If that's the case you'll be doing a lot of people (including the owner) a favour.
If he knew about the illegal photo use, then this could serve as a warning to him not to try it again. And he may want to appease you with a settlement of some sort. Who knows?
I'd suggest you don't mention things like being an amateur, or not expecting much back. They don't need to know that, and it might make them dismiss you offhand.
Explain the situation -- you are a photographer whose Intellectual Property (the photos) has been used in their marketing material, without permission or compensation. You could say that you appreciate that they like your work enough to include it in their pamphlet, but that you should have been consulted first.
Don't threaten or get aggressive, just inform in a neutral tone, and see what comes back.
They might offer you some compensation (which is better than you have now), or they might ignore you (no worse off). I believe you'll at least be doing all photographers a favour.
If you don't say/do anything, you might find your shots being used in other material down the line. How pissed off will you be then?

this is good advice :thumbsup:

no harm letting ppl know that they have stepped on your rights... then decide on the corrective actions accordingly.

i will like to believe that some ppl do not know they are doing something wrong and will be willing to rectify.

if they however refuse to budge, you have to decide on your actions then...

 

[godzilla60]

like tat shoot food is better
at least 5* hotel

?:dunno:

 

[ahpoke]

thx for the advice, i have already sent a email to the shop regarding the incident, as for incident no.1, i'll hope the guy dosent do that again.

 

[Limsgp]

you mean kiss the rights goodbye..?

is this case, after your meal, you've kiss your photos good bye.

 

[vince123123]

1. Copyright in the original photo belongs to you. Copyright in the edited photo belongs to the editor. However, that edited photo will probably infringe the copyright in the original photo.

One principle which most common folk don't understand is that, an infringing work can still enjoy copyright, notwithstanding the fact that it infringes the copyright in another work.

But, there must be some element of material alternation or embellishment which makes the totality of the second work, an original work. This is usually factual

I personally doubt adding borders or captions makes the work really that much different; but that's just my own personal unsubstantiated view.

2. I can't decide for you if it should be tolerated, but I can tell you that legally speaking, that shop may have infringed copyright.

Cheers!
Vince123123

Hi, just asking a few questions ^^ hope some1 could reply to them

1. just curious over the rights of photog, if a person takes ur unprocessed photo without ur permission and edits it using PS or some other software by adding stuff like borders+captions and then claims it as theirs without crediting you, so who does the photo eventually belong to? you or the person who photoshoped it?

2. as a amateur photog, you post pictures of a free entry event say 1 year ago, 1 year later u find out a shop is using that same photos on his pamphlets, to which u have not given permission for them to use. shld it be tolerated? coz i feel a bit pissed when he was using those photos, even if the targets in the photos were wearing the shop goods...

before these two issues happened i nv bothered watermarking my photos, but after that, i started doing so... shld i be angry? or not? i do the occasional newbie freelance but i never take money for it (just get a free meal or two)

 

[godzilla60]

1. Copyright in the original photo belongs to you. Copyright in the edited photo belongs to the editor. However, that edited photo will probably infringe the copyright in the original photo.

One principle which most common folk don't understand is that, an infringing work can still enjoy copyright, notwithstanding the fact that it infringes the copyright in another work.

But, there must be some element of material alternation or embellishment which makes the totality of the second work, an original work. This is usually factual

I personally doubt adding borders or captions makes the work really that much different; but that's just my own personal unsubstantiated view.

2. I can't decide for you if it should be tolerated, but I can tell you that legally speaking, that shop may have infringed copyright.

Cheers!
Vince123123

the master has spoken.... :thumbsup::thumbsup: