Dave Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Some one is selling a picture of my Diamond T 981 on ebay. He claims that as he took the photo, he has the copyrights. As the truck legally belongs to me and the photo was taken without my knowledge or consent, what are my rights? Does the photographer have any rights? Incidentally if anybody should want a picture of my truck all they need to do is ask and i can email them loads of piccies for free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Where was the photo taken? If the photo was taken at, or from, a public place, then you expect to have people take pictures. He has copyright of that particular image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 I haven`t got a problem with people taking snaps, i`m just curious as to the "sale of" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montie Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 This will 'p" me off too! Take as many pics as you like but selling it? No!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fv1609 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Well if he sells one then there must be a demand. So maybe take some nicer pictures yourself & start selling those? :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 It's how photographers make their living. A standard 101 ambulnace photo is my old beast. Neither I nor previous owner have made a penny out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Legally you can only have a say in it if the images are taken on your own private property with or without your permission. I would not enter your property without invitation and even then would clarify what I could photograph and how the photos would be used. If I were to snap your truck without asking, you would be entitled to redress. But the sad fact is the legal nonsense involved using ambulance chasers would negate any financial benefit and leave you no option but to get the hump with all pro/semi pro/happy snappers or raid the armoury. Anywhere on public roads or land is out of your control. If it is at a public show on someone else's private property - such as W&P etc (but using it as a prime example), then there is actually very little to say about it because the "press" or "event" photographers covering the show (such as myself) are directed to record it for a variety of purposes. For example, I snap stuff for Rex's website which are added every day ( as part of a team) and I am also free to use these images commercially in any way I see fit (I don't get paid for doing it). In practice this generally means I just give them to whoever wants them - living history groups etc. But I admit to have been tardy at this in 2011/12 due to a run of very crappy health. The point is, it is always polite to ask, but not always possible. Ignorance is no excuse and if I see a person in a living history role or with a vehicle, I always ask....even on A&E. It doesn't hurt and it breaks the ice. Some people are not keen and some are blatantly unhelpful. If this is the case, I take my leave. I am not a collector. I hope this restores your faith a little. I'm afraid there will always be someone snapping you but rest assured they will not be making a fortune out of you even if they are selling their snaps. Most publishers are still paying around £10-15 a time for a snap. I haven't sold an MV snap for donkeys years since my time with CMV ended. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I never actually mentioned copyright. Just because it's your truck you do not own any copyright. It's not like image rights you find on people like Beckham or so on which is another ball game altogether - pun intended. In my case I never surrender copyright but terms of use are a separate issue. For instance, I did a string of gigs photographing trading rooms of a number of financial institutions for a company making specialist furniture. The copyright is mine but I agreed in writing I would never use the images in any way barring their specific arrangements because of the agreements they had set with the institutions themselves. I could have made a nice wad of cash off these images during the current banking scandal(s), but an agreement is an agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 For specific images, specific rules. I have a number of drawings by Olly Cook of my vehicles. I own the originals, he owns the copyright of the pictures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Grundy Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 A while ago there was a a discussion on Radio 4 regarding coypright. The conclusion was that copyright was with the person who operated the shutter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 A while ago there was a a discussion on Radio 4 regarding coypright. The conclusion was that copyright was with the person who operated the shutter. That's legally correct unless the person operating the shutter is employed to do so, in which case the Copyright belongs to the employer in the absence of any other agreement. However, as Snapper says, that doesn't mean the Copyright owner has rights to use the photos, that's something else entirely. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Absolutely right. I work for a media organisation. People employed as photographers do not own the stuff they take FOR the company. Some years ago a management buffoon suggested all us involved in the photographic side were obliged to devolve our copyright to the company. I asked if this included the images of the births of my children or snaps of my cats and he demured. But he was keen on my other stuff which told the true story - so the net result was an invitation from me to him to go forth and multiply. A short time later Rupert Murdoch gave him a similar invitation and this carried a lot more weight. Hey ho! I'm still here as the empire crumbles...but that is another story. Damn the torpedoes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utt61 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) I believe that there is one possible loophole in this situation, which is that it is under certain circumstances possible to register your item as a trademark which then provides copy protection. There was (at least) one steam locomotive operational on UK heritage railways where this has been done, and (at least the owning company believed that) it actually legally prevented people selling photos of it commercially without a licence from the trademark owner. It did not, and in practice it is impossible to, prevent private individuals taking photos from public places for their own enjoyment. I found this out when I was looking into the possibility of hiring the loco for a photocharter, something which consequently proved to be excessively expensive as a result. I beleive that the loco has since been sold and that this may no longer be the case. I also do not know how effective this was from a legal standpoint - as far as I know the owning company never instigated proceding agains anyone. So the bottom line is that anyone can take a photo of your truck (and indeed you with it) and sell it, provided that the photo was taken from a public place. It is also a little-known fact that even the OSA does not prohibit you taking photos for your own enjoyment, it prohibits you from taking photos with the intention to assist an enemy of the state. Ergo, if you want to photograph a "prohibited place" you can, and the authorities would have to prove intent for a conviction, something which is notoriously difficult to do. Not sure I'd like to argue this with a burly policeman, though. You may also fall foul of more recent anti-terrorism laws now, of course. I came across this webpage the other day, which might be of interest to any photographers here:- http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm Edited July 11, 2012 by utt61 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Yep, That is pretty much up to date. The 2000 Act was often in practice a ridiculous piece of legislation. I know people who were stopped from photographing things like carnivals in their home towns by zealous PCSOs looking for ragheads under the bed. I also have a friend who was photographing sunsets on the Thames who was stopped by a Met police officer who suspected him of being some sort of Al Qaeda dicker. He chose to delete his images. Yet we have friends on this forum who work tirelessly snapping the armed forces on Salisbury Plain and elsewhere, who although they receive mixed support from elements of the authorities (I know because I've spent time with them), manage to do fantastic work all for sheer pleasure and to support our armed forces. The irony is always the first casualty. I seem to remember your train. It seems a bit extreme - but obviously this is to maximise all fund raising potential to keep it chuffing. This seems fair enough to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike65 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Yes I know people who were prevented from photographing buildings in London on anti-terroism ground. Yet Google did the whole country. IIRC if you hire somebody for photographic purposes you need a model release document in order to use the pictures commercially Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 There was a right old wardance concerning the London Eye a few years back. You can't photograph it without permission! The whole thing ended up with the owners be told to apply mathmatical tables, as people were on public ground. I used to take a lot of pictures for court eveidence. Only once did authority try to intervene, and that was close to a military site, so I wasn't offended. I just answered the questions politley and MOD Plod hung about for a bit till I'd finished. As Snapper says on military sites I've always asked about pictures and except in extreme situations been told 'Fill your boots mate!' Museums have thier own rules, for various reasons, but with camera phones even that is getting difficult to enforce. Funnily enough Samsung banned people from carrying mobile phones in their works, for just that reason. :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Yep - model release forms are essential. Especially for anything generic for agencies like Alamy and Flckr. ALWAYS anything involving under 18s. As I confine myself to event photography and quiet stuff out and about I worry not. Past caring. Yes I know people who were prevented from photographing buildings in London on anti-terroism ground. Yet Google did the whole country. IIRC if you hire somebody for photographic purposes you need a model release document in order to use the pictures commercially Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxy Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 In the case of a UK bona-fide press photographer taking a photograph , that his newspaper sells on as a scoop to another newspaper in the USA. 70 + years pass , both newspapers as such are defunct (or absorbed into larger groups). This photograph was one of several taken at the time but AFAIK it was not used as others were considered more suitable BUT after 70 years it is now known they were far less important. This photograph is the only one remaining (that is known of) , I purchase the photograph with provenance for a $ sum that I suppose is realistic but not conservative - if I make this photograph available to others (as part of research that I have been involved with) do I own the "copyright" , is there any way that I can discourage use by others without my permission ? OPINIONS.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike65 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 In the case of a UK bona-fide press photographer taking a photograph , that his newspaper sells on as a scoop to another newspaper in the USA. 70 + years pass , both newspapers as such are defunct (or absorbed into larger groups). This photograph was one of several taken at the time but AFAIK it was not used as others were considered more suitable BUT after 70 years it is now known they were far less important. This photograph is the only one remaining (that is known of) , I purchase the photograph with provenance for a $ sum that I suppose is realistic but not conservative - if I make this photograph available to others (as part of research that I have been involved with) do I own the "copyright" , is there any way that I can discourage use by others without my permission ? OPINIONS.. Depends on the age of the picture, possibly country of origin http://www.salshuel.co.uk/cdur.htm Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I work for News International here in the UK. We own the photographic rights of The Times The Sunday Times The Sun The News of the World (closed 2011) Today (closed 1995) Daily Sketch (from when it was brought from Edward Hulton by Lord Rothermere and then only up to 1950 when the title was sold on) Daily Graphic (same) Sunday Empire News (same) various Allied Newspaper regionals (same - all as part of the Kemsley empire) Any images stamped Graphic Photo Union We vigorously protect our copyright. We can't stop you owning prints bought in good faith as a consequence of library clear outs - they have been happening for decades. But, trying to make money off the images - ours or anyone elses, breaches copyright law and there are people who will come after "you" (i don't mean YOU personally obviously) with a flock of bull mastiffs and an aggressive team of ambulance chasers looking for their buck. Photographic opyright theft is a serious affair and is something the big corporations are beginning to take notice of. It's actually long overdue. In actual fact, pooling of images during WW2 has presented an enormous grey area allowing people to make money off each other in all kinds of ways. But at some point it will have to end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxy Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 QUOTE. 1 We vigorously protect our copyright. We can't stop you owning prints bought in good faith as a consequence of library clear outs - they have been happening for decades. QUOTE. 2 In actual fact, pooling of images during WW2 has presented an enormous grey area allowing people to make money off each other in all kinds of ways. But at some point it will have to end. The circumstances are probably exactly as you describe. The vendor has reputation , the provenance can not be bettered. The fact is that I recognised the great historical significance that has only become significant in recent years (that was a puzzle even at the time). Obviously - I know the origins , reporters name (but not the photographer he took to site) , their employer , the US newspaper the photograph(s) were wired to. Probably I will need to do more research on the Newspapers concerned to establish if they retain the copyright , although - it would seem they no longer have actual legal ownership of the only photograph(s) . The pics I have , I suspect did not go into print as more dramatic ones were known used. At least until I became aware - nobody bothered , obviously well filed away but with captions as if prepared for print. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxy Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 In the case of a UK bona-fide press photographer taking a photograph , that his newspaper sells on as a scoop to another newspaper in the USA. 70 + years pass , both newspapers as such are defunct (or absorbed into larger groups). This photograph was one of several taken at the time but AFAIK it was not used as others were considered more suitable BUT after 70 years it is now known they were far less important. This photograph is the only one remaining (that is known of) , I purchase the photograph with provenance for a $ sum that I suppose is realistic but not conservative - if I make this photograph available to others (as part of research that I have been involved with) do I own the "copyright" , is there any way that I can discourage use by others without my permission ? OPINIONS.. =========== Photographs taken between 1 July 1912 and 31 May 1957 - the day before the 1956 Copyright Act became law Copyright will expire fifty years from the end of the year in which the photograph was taken or seventy years after the death of the photographer, whichever is the longer. This may not be so simple, a Limited Liability company is in fact a entity as if a person, this is why in theory a Ltd. Co. can survive for ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbayonetww2 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 There is of course the other problem..... As most people do not understand that the photographer has copywrite, some people seem to think they can use photos taken at events for their own use without asking permission. Ask nicely and you usually get rewards! It can bring out the worst in people. I've known one occasion at least when privately taken photos (on Flickr) were used by a well known reeenactor group for promotional material for their own website without asking the photographers permission or even just giving credit. When this error is pointed out to them and they were asked to attribute them to the said photographer they got quite nasty. I should point out she wasn't looking for money.... just the pleasure of other people know who the photographer was. It put her off joining visiting events for a while !! and she no longer posts any photos.Pity as she is quite good. Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Thats right - which is how media companies renew copyright. Also, in the business, a lot of pix are supplied as copyright free - but the user pays a "service fee" to the provider for letting them have it. There is a term used nowadays - aggrogater - or something like that, it defies our spell checker - which covers this. What it basically means is the rules are there to be bent. =========== Photographs taken between 1 July 1912 and 31 May 1957 - the day before the 1956 Copyright Act became law Copyright will expire fifty years from the end of the year in which the photograph was taken or seventy years after the death of the photographer, whichever is the longer. This may not be so simple, a Limited Liability company is in fact a entity as if a person, this is why in theory a Ltd. Co. can survive for ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Absolutely true, Doug. I've practically given up worrying about it. It is nice to be asked. I have never had a website (too lazy) and have generally put my snaps on here or latterly on a well known social networking site. I've noticed that after WP when I've put my stuff up and it's been on the show site I get masses of friend requests from people I do not know at all. No disrespect, but I tend to be friends with people I am on speaking terms with. I also find friends and acquaintances of mine share my galleries, but to be honest, I am the muppet who put them up in the first place, so... It is always nice to be asked, and in my case it is nice if I actually get round to sending off the snaps. I often forget and some times just don't. People who know me on here will realise I am back after a year out when I went off for a sabbatical. I'd had enough....so off I went back to the world. I am going to WP tomorrow and will be on the press team. Come and say hello. I'll be the chap wearing the HMVF cap. It may be my last full show. I've got some unpleasant stuff going on with my head and it isn't going away - but don't worry I will be sticking around. One day at a time..... There is of course the other problem..... As most people do not understand that the photographer has copywrite, some people seem to think they can use photos taken at events for their own use without asking permission. Ask nicely and you usually get rewards! It can bring out the worst in people. I've known one occasion at least when privately taken photos (on Flickr) were used by a well known reeenactor group for promotional material for their own website without asking the photographers permission or even just giving credit. When this error is pointed out to them and they were asked to attribute them to the said photographer they got quite nasty. I should point out she wasn't looking for money.... just the pleasure of other people know who the photographer was. It put her off joining visiting events for a while !! and she no longer posts any photos.Pity as she is quite good. Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.