so then it would be ok for me to take a picture of your pictures and sell them?
If you showed up at one of my displays and started photographing my pictures, I'd ask you what you were doing. If your reply was, "These are great. I'm going to make copies and sell them", I'd tell you that doing so would be a violation of copyright and would result in you being contacted by my attorney.
If you showed up at one of my displays and started photographing my pictures, I'd ask you what you were doing. If your reply was, "These are great. I'm going to make copies and sell them", I'd tell you that doing so would be a violation of copyright and would result in you being contacted by my attorney.
Photographing your photos..... Interesting. There was a discussion about photographing copyrighted buildings. Most thought it was fine to do that, and because it was in public, there wasn't an issue. Others (an architect) said that it bothered him to the point of wanting to sue.
I think if I photographed the photo for the sole reason of duplicating it, it's a violation. If I took a photo of your display, as a whole, I've created something new and the fact it includes your images is just a diversion from the fact that I now have a new photo with my own copyright. (I'm assuming the display was at a County Fair or something similar.) I would imagine that it would come down to the intent; specifically, what was the reason for taking the photo of the photo.
Photographing your photos..... Interesting. There was a discussion about photographing copyrighted buildings. Most thought it was fine to do that, and because it was in public, there wasn't an issue. Others (an architect) said that it bothered him to the point of wanting to sue.
Copyrighted 'building'? I could be wrong, but I don't think it is possible to copyright a building.
It's a document created by the US Copyright Office. I'd suggest reading it.. Interesting stuff.
Now, since it is from a Federal Government office, and copyright can not apply to it (all works by the federal government are without copyright), I will include the full text here:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, Revised July 2006
Eiffel Tower is copyrighted (well, at night)... As are a few other structures.
David
Is that copywritten or trademarked? I thought the acutal design (ie architectural drawings) would be copywritten, but the building in it's built form would then be trademarked (like the empire state building)?
Is that copywritten or trademarked? I thought the acutal design (ie architectural drawings) would be copywritten, but the building in it's built form would then be trademarked (like the empire state building)?
You might be right. But, in any event, I know trying to sell a photo of it, at night, is a big no-no. Kinda dumb if you ask me, but...
Is that copywritten or trademarked? I thought the acutal design (ie architectural drawings) would be copywritten, but the building in it's built form would then be trademarked (like the empire state building)?
I misread this.. I thought you said a picture of YOU (i.e. a portrait of me). Not a photo of my photos... Read above for my thoughts.
Ok, so based on your response above, the schemetics at Safeway are intelectual property, which is protect in a very similar manner to copyright. But yet above you said I could legally sell a copy of a picture I took of a Safeway schematic.
Ok, so based on your response above, the schemetics at Safeway are intelectual property, which is protect in a very similar manner to copyright. But yet above you said I could legally sell a copy of a picture I took of a Safeway schematic.
See what I am trying to get at?
Sell.. Yes. For commercial use, maybe not. For art/editorial? Yes.
Selling isn't the issue. It's the REASON for selling it.
Since I don't remember well, I'll respond to the closest first. I do thank you for responding.
I didn't identify the chidlren. I don't know thier names or ages, they identify themselves through their swim caps, or by congregating around one coach but not another. But, I don't identify anyone. In most cases (8 out of 9) the "bulls eye" of the focus was on another unidentified swimmer who may or may not have been my daughter. But in post shoot production, I could "harvest" the 3 or 4 swimmers closest to my daughter. Of course I release my daughter to be in my photos... but can't the others whom I don't know or know which clubs they belong to. Other dads and moms are shooting away with their digitals getting their children, and including my child in their frame. They also post their pictures to a commercial internet website: walgreens or such, and my daughter is in who knows how many pictures.
You asked, "are the parents objecting to the photos appearing on the internet or are they objecting to your selling the photos"
Great question. The parents said their sons were embarrassed by having unknown people seeing them in speedos.
My question centers on the literally hundreds of others taking the same shot with the same result of capturing thier focus plus 7 or 8 other swimmers and showing them somewhere to someone.
Again, thanks.
Very interesting thread, particularly since I also take a lot of photos as public events, like Earth Day, for example, and some other events that are not "public" in that you had to buy a ticket, but anyone could buy one and there were dozens of other people taking pictures. I do not try to identify everyone in the pictures, nor do I get model releases. What I do do, though, is put a sentence in the gallery description stating I will remove any photo if someone in it objects. This has happened twice, and one time it was the person's dog that he didn't want posted on the internet! I'm confident that I don't need model releases for this kind of thing, but at the same time I make it clear that I will take an image down if anyone objects.
Am I posting them to sell? No, I'm posting them for the participants to enjoy, and if they want to buy a print, great! I do put a visible watermark on them and usually state that folks are welcome to download and use the low resolution images for personal use on myspace, etc. That happens quite a bit. For some events, particularly the belly dance shows, the participants and I have gotten to know each other pretty well and they will buy prints on occasion.
A co-worker who is a soccer mom and she is really upset at the shennanigans that some "professional" photo companies are going through at soccer tournements. They send a photographer or two, usually not very good ones, and they pressure the organizers into "exclusive" rights and then badger the parents to buy prints and threaten legal action against parents who take pictures and post them someplace else where prints can be ordered. I have no objection to an "official" photographer at an event, but I wonder about their ethics.
I also do a fair amount of work with models and set up shoots, and for those I always get model releases. They key thing is the intended use -- if I'm going for "publication", no publisher is going to print an image without a model release. If I'm simply going to share the images, I can't see any problem with making a few cents above the cost for printing for people who haven't gone 100 percent digital in their photo viewing habits.
Brandon
Brandon Smith http://redwoodtwig.com
Sony A7r4 with a selection of Rokinon Cine primes that I'm really enjoying learning how to use.
Sorry about stepping on your signature... I tried moving my message and failed.
I did not read everyone's response, but how about making it a password protected gallery. Just provide the teams with the pass word...Then, it's not a public gallery, right?
M
I did not read everyone's response, but how about making it a password protected gallery. Just provide the teams with the pass word...Then, it's not a public gallery, right?
M
That is exactly what I did, immediately upon notification by the board chair that there were issues. I did choose to disclose that password to this forum here. I did here, but no where else, because I wanted true reflection and comments from you all, not just based on my or someone else's description.
*** MOD edit; Irrelevant to the discussion of photography - Angelo ***
Back to the swimming photo issue. I've now changed the password and will spend some time figuring out how to know if applicant "A" really is "A" or an imposter, and whether or not "real" is a predator or a parent (or as in the case of my fired senior assistant, both.)
Thank you, each, for your participation in the discussion. Good points were made by most all.
Again, This is simply not true. Safeway is open to the pubic, however you can not take pictures inside there stores with out permission.
wrong analogy!
Safeway is NOT open to the public in the legal sense illustrated in this thread. Safeway is a private business into which you enter for the express purpose of conducting a specific type of commerce.
The proper analogy would be a shopping mall which occupies space within a municipality to host businesses wanting to conduct commerce with the public. If that mall is open and free of any restrictions allowing the public to pass then it is considered "public space" in every legal sense known or ever argued.
Everything discussed in this thread has been addressed dozens of time before with references and explanations all available to read in the "Mind Your Own Business" forum.
Eiffel Tower is copyrighted (well, at night)... As are a few other structures.
David
No it isn't. Its lighting design is copyrighted and as such you can NOT sell images portraying the lighting for commercial use but you can still sell prints.
Is that copywritten or trademarked? I thought the acutal design (ie architectural drawings) would be copywritten, but the building in it's built form would then be trademarked (like the empire state building)?
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with writing.
That is exactly what I did, immediately upon notification by the board chair that there were issues. I did choose to disclose that password to this forum here. I did here, but no where else, because I wanted true reflection and comments from you all, not just based on my or someone else's description.
*** MOD edit; Irrelevant to the discussion of photography - Angelo ***
Back to the swimming photo issue. I've now changed the password and will spend some time figuring out how to know if applicant "A" really is "A" or an imposter, and whether or not "real" is a predator or a parent (or as in the case of my fired senior assistant, both.)
Thank you, each, for your participation in the discussion. Good points were made by most all.
Nipprdog is right - it's about what is right, not what is legal
I'm with Nipprdog on this. I shoot swim team photographs for sale. The meets are public events and parents sign a blanket release at the beginnining of the season. I also shoot 'action portraits' of swimmers in our team pool.
Nevertheless, I password protect all galleries and edit out any shots that show kids, especially teenagers, in anything that hints of a revealing pose.
Swimming is different from other sports in the amount of clothing worn. I think that swimmers and their families should have a higher level of expectation of privacy than might be needed in other sports.
I have had several photos of swimmers published in magazines. In that situation, I obtain a model release, whether I am being paid for the picture or not.
The point, as Nipprdog says it so well, is that this should not be a discussion about what is legal, but rather what is best for the kids involved and what is the best way for photographers to represent themselves.
If you build trust with the team families, and are seen as a respected, discrete member of the team community, problems should be minimal.
By being careful to build trust with the kids and parents (and I am both a parent and a USA Swimming official), I have had no complaints about any of my work, and sales are growing quite nicely.
I'm with Nipprdog on this. I shoot swim team photographs for sale. The meets are public events and parents sign a blanket release at the beginnining of the season. I also shoot 'action portraits' of swimmers in our team pool.
Nevertheless, I password protect all galleries and edit out any shots that show kids, especially teenagers, in anything that hints of a revealing pose.
Swimming is different from other sports in the amount of clothing worn. I think that swimmers and their families should have a higher level of expectation of privacy than might be needed in other sports.
I have had several photos of swimmers published in magazines. In that situation, I obtain a model release, whether I am being paid for the picture or not.
The point, as Nipprdog says it so well, is that this should not be a discussion about what is legal, but rather what is best for the kids involved and what is the best way for photographers to represent themselves.
If you build trust with the team families, and are seen as a respected, discrete member of the team community, problems should be minimal.
By being careful to build trust with the kids and parents (and I am both a parent and a USA Swimming official), I have had no complaints about any of my work, and sales are growing quite nicely.
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with writing.
?? I didn't say anything about writing? I did mean copyrighted not copywritten, but if you're nitpicking that, at least point out that's what you mean (it was my stupid error and I don't care if that's what you're trying to say). Otherwise, I'm still confused as to the reference to writing. It is fairy irrelevant to this thread however, either way.
To the point of the thread, I think the above two posters are spot on. I don't shoot photos of people period, but I think there is a greater level of care that needs to be taken when shooting pics of minors. I'm continually surprised with the photos people (parents) will post, along with WAY too much information, in the 'net. However, as photographers, we need to hold ourselves above reproach in regards to these photos. I think there's was a true "innocence" in the original handling of this by the original poster. I'm sure the way it was perceived (by some parents) was not how it was meant, and perhaps that person had never even considered all the possible things that could come from posting these photos. A quick search regarding stolen images will really open one's eyes-including a post here about a photo of a mior that was stolen and found on a not-so-savory website.
Can I just add... that there is a cost associated with shooting and posting your photos (even of kids at a swim meet).
In other words, you do not have to give those photos away.
If someone wants a photo, you can charge them to recover your expenses for creating those images and that is NOT considered a commercial use. You're merely recovering your costs -- and that can include mileage to get to the event, computer equipment, website fees, etc.
Comments
so then it would be ok for me to take a picture of your pictures and sell them?
David
Twitter: @WolfSnap
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WolfSnapDesigns
SmugMug & Wordpress Customization - WolfSnap.com | Custom Domains
www.jamesbroome.com
My SportsShooter.com Profile
Canon user since 1984 • Photoshop user since 1991
1D Mk IIn • 24-70 f/2.8L • 70-200 f/2.8L • 300 f/2.8L
I think if I photographed the photo for the sole reason of duplicating it, it's a violation. If I took a photo of your display, as a whole, I've created something new and the fact it includes your images is just a diversion from the fact that I now have a new photo with my own copyright. (I'm assuming the display was at a County Fair or something similar.) I would imagine that it would come down to the intent; specifically, what was the reason for taking the photo of the photo.
David
Twitter: @WolfSnap
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WolfSnapDesigns
SmugMug & Wordpress Customization - WolfSnap.com | Custom Domains
Twitter: @WolfSnap
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WolfSnapDesigns
SmugMug & Wordpress Customization - WolfSnap.com | Custom Domains
www.jamesbroome.com
My SportsShooter.com Profile
Canon user since 1984 • Photoshop user since 1991
1D Mk IIn • 24-70 f/2.8L • 70-200 f/2.8L • 300 f/2.8L
It's a document created by the US Copyright Office. I'd suggest reading it.. Interesting stuff.
Now, since it is from a Federal Government office, and copyright can not apply to it (all works by the federal government are without copyright), I will include the full text here:
David<!-- Footer -->
<!-- #BeginLibraryItem "/Library/footer-nodate.lbi" --><!-- Footer -->
Twitter: @WolfSnap
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WolfSnapDesigns
SmugMug & Wordpress Customization - WolfSnap.com | Custom Domains
David
Twitter: @WolfSnap
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WolfSnapDesigns
SmugMug & Wordpress Customization - WolfSnap.com | Custom Domains
there's a discussion somewhere around here about this with a link to this site: http://www.danheller.com/biz-trademarks.html which will explain it better than I can...
Is that copywritten or trademarked? I thought the acutal design (ie architectural drawings) would be copywritten, but the building in it's built form would then be trademarked (like the empire state building)?
David
Twitter: @WolfSnap
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WolfSnapDesigns
SmugMug & Wordpress Customization - WolfSnap.com | Custom Domains
Twitter: @WolfSnap
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WolfSnapDesigns
SmugMug & Wordpress Customization - WolfSnap.com | Custom Domains
Very interesting.
www.jamesbroome.com
My SportsShooter.com Profile
Canon user since 1984 • Photoshop user since 1991
1D Mk IIn • 24-70 f/2.8L • 70-200 f/2.8L • 300 f/2.8L
www.jamesbroome.com
My SportsShooter.com Profile
Canon user since 1984 • Photoshop user since 1991
1D Mk IIn • 24-70 f/2.8L • 70-200 f/2.8L • 300 f/2.8L
Ok, so based on your response above, the schemetics at Safeway are intelectual property, which is protect in a very similar manner to copyright. But yet above you said I could legally sell a copy of a picture I took of a Safeway schematic.
See what I am trying to get at?
Selling isn't the issue. It's the REASON for selling it.
David
Twitter: @WolfSnap
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WolfSnapDesigns
SmugMug & Wordpress Customization - WolfSnap.com | Custom Domains
Very interesting thread, particularly since I also take a lot of photos as public events, like Earth Day, for example, and some other events that are not "public" in that you had to buy a ticket, but anyone could buy one and there were dozens of other people taking pictures. I do not try to identify everyone in the pictures, nor do I get model releases. What I do do, though, is put a sentence in the gallery description stating I will remove any photo if someone in it objects. This has happened twice, and one time it was the person's dog that he didn't want posted on the internet! I'm confident that I don't need model releases for this kind of thing, but at the same time I make it clear that I will take an image down if anyone objects.
Am I posting them to sell? No, I'm posting them for the participants to enjoy, and if they want to buy a print, great! I do put a visible watermark on them and usually state that folks are welcome to download and use the low resolution images for personal use on myspace, etc. That happens quite a bit. For some events, particularly the belly dance shows, the participants and I have gotten to know each other pretty well and they will buy prints on occasion.
A co-worker who is a soccer mom and she is really upset at the shennanigans that some "professional" photo companies are going through at soccer tournements. They send a photographer or two, usually not very good ones, and they pressure the organizers into "exclusive" rights and then badger the parents to buy prints and threaten legal action against parents who take pictures and post them someplace else where prints can be ordered. I have no objection to an "official" photographer at an event, but I wonder about their ethics.
I also do a fair amount of work with models and set up shoots, and for those I always get model releases. They key thing is the intended use -- if I'm going for "publication", no publisher is going to print an image without a model release. If I'm simply going to share the images, I can't see any problem with making a few cents above the cost for printing for people who haven't gone 100 percent digital in their photo viewing habits.
Brandon
http://redwoodtwig.com
Sony A7r4 with a selection of Rokinon Cine primes that I'm really enjoying learning how to use.
I did not read everyone's response, but how about making it a password protected gallery. Just provide the teams with the pass word...Then, it's not a public gallery, right?
M
That is exactly what I did, immediately upon notification by the board chair that there were issues. I did choose to disclose that password to this forum here. I did here, but no where else, because I wanted true reflection and comments from you all, not just based on my or someone else's description.
*** MOD edit; Irrelevant to the discussion of photography - Angelo ***
Back to the swimming photo issue. I've now changed the password and will spend some time figuring out how to know if applicant "A" really is "A" or an imposter, and whether or not "real" is a predator or a parent (or as in the case of my fired senior assistant, both.)
Thank you, each, for your participation in the discussion. Good points were made by most all.
Freestater
Phil Blansett
wrong analogy!
Safeway is NOT open to the public in the legal sense illustrated in this thread. Safeway is a private business into which you enter for the express purpose of conducting a specific type of commerce.
The proper analogy would be a shopping mall which occupies space within a municipality to host businesses wanting to conduct commerce with the public. If that mall is open and free of any restrictions allowing the public to pass then it is considered "public space" in every legal sense known or ever argued.
Everything discussed in this thread has been addressed dozens of time before with references and explanations all available to read in the "Mind Your Own Business" forum.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
A building's design can and usually is copyrighted by the architect but that has nothing to do with photogrpahing the building.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
No it isn't. Its lighting design is copyrighted and as such you can NOT sell images portraying the lighting for commercial use but you can still sell prints.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with writing.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Let's keep it civil anf focused folks.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Your editing is appreciated.
Freestater
Phil Blansett
I'm with Nipprdog on this. I shoot swim team photographs for sale. The meets are public events and parents sign a blanket release at the beginnining of the season. I also shoot 'action portraits' of swimmers in our team pool.
Nevertheless, I password protect all galleries and edit out any shots that show kids, especially teenagers, in anything that hints of a revealing pose.
Swimming is different from other sports in the amount of clothing worn. I think that swimmers and their families should have a higher level of expectation of privacy than might be needed in other sports.
I have had several photos of swimmers published in magazines. In that situation, I obtain a model release, whether I am being paid for the picture or not.
The point, as Nipprdog says it so well, is that this should not be a discussion about what is legal, but rather what is best for the kids involved and what is the best way for photographers to represent themselves.
If you build trust with the team families, and are seen as a respected, discrete member of the team community, problems should be minimal.
By being careful to build trust with the kids and parents (and I am both a parent and a USA Swimming official), I have had no complaints about any of my work, and sales are growing quite nicely.
Thank you,
I'm glad someone is listening.
http://www.knippixels.com
?? I didn't say anything about writing? I did mean copyrighted not copywritten, but if you're nitpicking that, at least point out that's what you mean (it was my stupid error and I don't care if that's what you're trying to say). Otherwise, I'm still confused as to the reference to writing. It is fairy irrelevant to this thread however, either way.
To the point of the thread, I think the above two posters are spot on. I don't shoot photos of people period, but I think there is a greater level of care that needs to be taken when shooting pics of minors. I'm continually surprised with the photos people (parents) will post, along with WAY too much information, in the 'net. However, as photographers, we need to hold ourselves above reproach in regards to these photos. I think there's was a true "innocence" in the original handling of this by the original poster. I'm sure the way it was perceived (by some parents) was not how it was meant, and perhaps that person had never even considered all the possible things that could come from posting these photos. A quick search regarding stolen images will really open one's eyes-including a post here about a photo of a mior that was stolen and found on a not-so-savory website.
My attempt at a humous correction of a grammatical error fell like a lead balloon. My apologies.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
In other words, you do not have to give those photos away.
If someone wants a photo, you can charge them to recover your expenses for creating those images and that is NOT considered a commercial use. You're merely recovering your costs -- and that can include mileage to get to the event, computer equipment, website fees, etc.
My point is that not all sales are commercial.
Portland, Oregon Photographer Pete Springer
website blog instagram facebook g+