Copywrite

[fx101]

I hope I'm not taking this thread too far off topic but have you thought about people stealing your work that was already "purchased"?

Sure downloading low-res web images doesn't keep me up at nights, but I've had reservations from the start regarding selling smaller prints. I figure, if someone likes my images enough to pay good money for them, they may like it enough to scan them and do with it as they please (make copies, email to friends, etc.). I'm sure some out there have the impression that if they paid for a print, they can do with it as they please.

A lot of my sales are of 8x10 or 8x12 matted on 11x14. For the above reason, I never sell prints loose and I always mat with a permanent bond so that dismantling them would destroy the original.

Perhaps I'm overthinking things too much. But I'm considering only selling prints 11x14 and larger for several reasons including the above. Still, better to do something and have some risks than do nothing.

Just a thought.

If you use a continuous tone process to expose unto matte fuji crystal archive, the texture gets really agitated when you scan the image. It's a nice safeguard. This being said, I'd worry little about paying customers ripping off your work. It's other people you have to worry about.

[brmill26]

Well, I hope it goes without saying that you're doing all of us a huge service. As I mentioned, I get bored quickly with legal discussions, but I have no problem with others making a go of it, especially when they can boil important issues (like this) down and give the rest of us a bottom line and some pointers.

Thanks, Steve, that is what I'm *attempting* to do. Copyright is just so darn complex and subjective that it's extremely difficult to do because there are very few bottom lines. But, my goal is to paint with the broader brush of "most of the time" and "usually" so that I can hit the most common important points, while leaving out the gritty, boring legal rhetoric.

The bottom line on Copyright for photographers is certainly that we need to have a working knowledge of the parts that allow us to do our jobs legally, protect the value of our work, how to license our work, and how to keep others from misusing our work.

[almo]

I do it all the time. Copyright laws are meant to protect us from unauthorized commercial use of our work...

IMO, downloading and printing artwork from the web for personal use is no different than tearing a page with an interesting photo out of a magazine and taping it to your refrigerator or bulletin board or putting it in a scrapbook. Or even a frame...

I have a morgue of literally hundreds of photos taken from magazines as reference for everything from lighting to styling concepts to composition to subject posing.

I also have many printed pics of fashion models taken by other shooters that were downloaded without permission. Again, it's solely for reference for talent I may want to work with or use for a specific job, or an image I like whose style I may want to try.

I seriously doubt anyone has much of an objection to this "fair use", and I certainly have no problems with others using my work the same way. In fact, I find the idea very flattering...

FWIW, art buyers all over the world (and by that I mean Photo Editors and Art Directors at publications and agencies) do this exact same thing all the time. They're responsible for paying photogs tons 'o dollars for work, and one way they keep track of who they like is to "steal" images off the web and file them or stick them up on a wall.

That's fine with me... :thumbsup:

It's profiting off of someone else's work that is both illegal and unethical...

I see a lot of ignorance of copyright laws. I worked at a pro lab, so I guess I have a better understanding than most people. I voted that I keep images that I download, and sometimes alter for my own purposes, but I have rarely ever printed one. I certainly have never attempted to make profit from someone else's work.

I admit that it makes me a little uncomfortable that someone might have a pic of mine hanging on their wall without my knowledge, but then I remember that I stamp every image and only post low-res versions. Paradoxically I find the idea rather flattering too...

[reverberation]

I think a key point to take away from this thread is what is legal vs. what is "accepted" vs. what is moral. All three can be quite different and all three can converge on certain points. Different people follow different points more closely than others, and so you end up with what we see above, which is a hodge-podge of viewpoints coming from all three directions. The Copyright Act *attempts* to address all of the above, but in doing so it has become insanely complex and even less well understood by the general public. It is also extremely subjective, which makes it very difficult to explain because every rule has exceptions.

I mentioned above that I've written an article on Copyright. This one is just the first in a weekly series I will be writing for HyperPhocal, so if you're interested in learning about what Copyright actually says, come check it out. Myself being a law student and a photographer, I'm trying to write it to help photographers understand what they need to know in order to protect their work, give it greater value, and stop misusing the work of others.
http://hyperphocal.com/?p=130

I agree with Steve, your article in the link was very informative and I look forward to reading more. This has been a great discussion for me because I am interested in the broader implications of copywrite for a society and the power the internet has to impact that.

[OldSchool]

I do download images from NASA that I use as my computer background. I have never reproduced or forwarded these images though. There was no catigory for this.

Tim

[brmill26]

I do download images from NASA that I use as my computer background. I have never reproduced or forwarded these images though. There was no catigory for this.

Tim

Ah, remember how I said there are few bottom lines? That there is a unique exception - by default, US Government work is NOT protected by Copyright! This includes most NASA images! But even this rule has exceptions, as images produced by contractors or by various agencies may have some restrictions - but in most cases, they are not as broad as a private creator's copyright. IE, personal, non-republished use is rarely restricted (that would be use as a computer background).