Copyright Violations

[welkcar]

Never thougtht I'd run into this, but I thought I'd write the forum about what's happened and let you experts give someone some advice.

I did a wedding about 2 years ago, and as an experiment, I gave the Bride and Groom a copy of all their photo/proofs in 2 albums, all 4x6's. I know, I know, but it was just an experiment to see if it might increase post wedding sales. It didn't and the albums with photos were never purchased or returned.

So, I got a call from the mother of the groom indicating she wanted to order photos from the wedding. We scheduled an appointment for 4:00 pm today. She had the albums with her, as well as a list of 208 image numbers that she wanted 4x6 prints of. She then indicated she had a confession to make, as she started trembling and crying.

She confessed she went to Walmart yesterday and stood at the Kodak kiosk and proceeded to scan and print the 208 4x6 photos. I know from experience that the kiosk asks you the standard copyright questions, which she answered falsly. I also know that when you're done, you give the photos to the attendant, who looks at the photos, sometimes counts them, puts them in sealed envelopes and then rings them up. The first few times I used these type kiosks at Sams Club, the attendant asked me about copyright authorization and I showed them my business card, which they accepted. (I was happy they appeared professional!!)

Anyway, Walmart charged the woman and let the photos go. After she got home, she started having second thoughts and couldn't sleep last night and therefore scheduled the meeting and ordered the photos from me. A wonderful woman (just had a momentary lapse). She wouldn't even keep the Walmart photos because she said she couldn't look at them. She gave me the 3 envelopes with the photos, 2 of the envelopes are still sealed.

I have no intention of pursuing anything with this woman. But my question is Walmart. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that they have possibly violated copyright laws 208 times.

I'd appreciate any advice you may have.

[tim]

Walmart asked the right questions, the woman lied, so I suspect the case would be against the woman. Given she's come to you just let it go, of course.

You expect people to return proof albums?

[Alleh]

Hah that’s pretty funny actually. I think it's great that she felt so bad she confessed and bought the images from you.

[welkcar]

The woman was great. Felt sorry for her as she is probably more honest than me.

With respect to Walmart, I've had customers go there for prints and they refused until they had a signed copy of my authorization to print. I know Walmat policy requires that, not sure what the law requires. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that they appeared to be professionally taken where authorization would be required. Also, there's no doubt the woman lied to the kiosk. I don't know if Walmart asked her anything.

[imahawki]

Wal mart can't do much more. They can't make the process so onerous that a legitimate person can't get their own stuff printed.

[welkcar]

So by saying that, you mean Walmart can't follow their own policy and ask for the authorization? These photos were obvious formal photos of a wedding. And I doubt the woman told them she took them. I don't know many photographers that make their prints by scanning 4x6's.

[sandpiper]

I doubt the woman told them she took them.

But in your first post above, you said " I know from experience that the kiosk asks you the standard copyright questions, which she answered falsly. "

If the kiosk asks you to confirm you have copyright, and she confirmed that, then surely she did say, if not that she took them, that she had the rights to print them.

I do think Walmart should have been a bit more vigilant, but they can only go so far before people can't get prints from stuff they legitimately have a right to. I have seen a number of complaints where photographers can't get prints of their own images 'because they look professional'.

Walmart may have been in the wrong, but what are you going to do about it. You don't want to take action against the woman (quite rightly, she is a customer now). Any legal action against Walmart would be rebounded by them onto her, as she lied about copyright and would be ultimately accountable. You might win against Walmart, but they would probably win against her.

You could go in and moan about it, which might make you feel better I suppose. I doubt it would achieve anything.

It is quite common practise for couples to copy images this way, if Walmart turns them away they will just go somewhere else. I'm not condoning it, any more than I would condone copying music, films or software, but it's a fact of life I'm afraid.

Be grateful that, in this case, the woman came to you and paid for proper prints. There will have been many cases in the past where copies were made and you never found out about it.

[cory1848]

Good luck fighting Walmart on this... there pockets are much deeper than yours... There was a thread on here awhile back stating with Walmarts terms of use that if you copy any photos at walmart, you assign rights over to walmart for promotion and publication. Meaning any photo you bring to get processed or scanned could be the next promotional photo you see plastered all over the world. Walmart said they would never do this however legally it said they could. Not sure of the outcome, was good read...

Personally, for me if someone wants to copy their wedding photos at Walmart, Walgreens, CVS etc... all the power to them. I guarantee my product if its bought from my lab, and do not guarantee it from a third party. I am giving a couple of prints to the client from my lab as a "this is what your photos can look like" promo piece. No comparison from a pro lab to Walmart and by giving away a photo, it proves it.

[bubbawillums]

Interesting one this, i think it was wal marts fault but the woman was dishonest and i guess they went with what she said.

I had something similar last week and im still deciding what to do about it? I did a wedding for some friends last year who bought an album with a load of 7x5 prints from me and they had been going on about their parents wanting to get a copy of the same photos made up so i quoted them @ £5 per print for 50 photos so it should of been £250 but i said i'd do them for £200 as a goodwill gesture. We agreed that they would sort out the payment for the photos when they got back from their honeymoon so i left it at that.

The couple took the late honeymoon and went last week and thier parents while they were away went round to the couples house and proceeded to take the photos out of the bride and grooms album, took them to the local Boots store (UK version of Walmart) scanned them all and paid £5 for the lot!

I did not know they had done this at the time and it was only when i called the couple to arrange payment for the extra prints that they told me what thier parents had done and that they no longer wanted/needed the prints.

I made it clear i was very unhappy that they had done this and that they had technically broken the law but as they are friends i dont know how to progress?

It would not cost me much to print the pics but its the principle of the matter.. Apparently they were asked no questions by the store as to who took the pics etc and were just allowed to scan them and print.

[tim]

I made it clear i was very unhappy that they had done this and that they had technically broken the law but as they are friends i dont know how to progress?

If they weren't friends you could send a letter telling them they've violated your copyright, and are liable for $x,000,000 in fines under copyright law if reported, but let them off if they actually purchase the prints. Intimidating your customers generally isn't a good idea though, so another approach would be a better idea.

But given they're friends you should probably just let it go. I don't work for friends any more as I find there's too many little problems.

[sspellman]

Welkcar-its pretty unreasonable to expect a photo clerk to catch every potential copyright violation hundreds of times every day without mistakes, especially when the customer lies.

If this really concerns you, then you need to be proactive-put a small studio watermark on each final print. Discuss your concerns with the Photo Lab Manager and that you never permit prints at Wallmart. If you are not willing to help and provide clear guidance for your images, then it is unreasonable to expect that there will never be a mistake.

-Scott

[cdifoto]

Nice try but you're not gonna win a lawsuit against Wally World and get rich enough to retire early. Wally World did nothing wrong. You have no case.

[stathunter]

I would agree with the others not sure you have much recourse against Wally. I have never had a customer be so honest...... I would have to print a few extra things just as a thank you.

[cdifoto]

I would agree with the others not sure you have much recourse against Wally. I have never had a customer be so honest...... I would have to print a few extra things just as a thank you.
Yeah the crying jag woulda been huge brownie points in my book. LOL.

[imahawki]

So by saying that, you mean Walmart can't follow their own policy and ask for the authorization? These photos were obvious formal photos of a wedding. And I doubt the woman told them she took them. I don't know many photographers that make their prints by scanning 4x6's.

How can they know? If I take in photos that I took at a wedding, the would look like they could be professional. But I'm not a professional and I have no cards or any way to prove that I took the photos. As I said, no photo printing lab can make the process too onerous or people couldn't even print their own photos.

[tomslens]

While I tend to agree that you don't have much if any case against Walmart legally, I wouldn't just let it pass. If this is a Walmart local to you, it may be worth making an appointment with and speaking to the manager (at least the photo manager). Let him/her know what took place. Be sensitive to the limitations they have (staffing, customer service) but take a collaborative approach to trying to avoid this issue in the future. It couldn't hurt to make the manager realize that you are a local photographer who takes his copyright very seriously. At a minimum they may pay a little, tiny bit more attention to whether the photos look like pro images. Worst thing that happens (if you maintaint a professional demeanor) is nothing.

[imahawki]

Let me ask a serious question. If someone comes in with pro looking images and can't prove that they own them, should Wal-Mart refuse to print them? What then guarantees that they won't refuse to print a hobbiest's high quality images?

[tomslens]

Let me ask a serious question. If someone comes in with pro looking images and can't prove that they own them, should Wal-Mart refuse to print them? What then guarantees that they won't refuse to print a hobbiest's high quality images?

I probably should have clarified. I don't expect a Walmart employee to make a value judgement. However, if they happen to see a foil imprint on the image or see that the images are in proofing album they could, as they had with the OP, ask for a business card.
Again, its not about foolproofing. Its just about taking slightly more care to ensure that the copyright owner is making the copies. It is especially about making an attempt with the OP's local Walmart to establish a relationship whereby he might be just a little more protected.

[Erich in Az]

While I tend to agree that you don't have much if any case against Walmart legally, I wouldn't just let it pass. If this is a Walmart local to you, it may be worth making an appointment with and speaking to the manager (at least the photo manager). Let him/her know what took place. Be sensitive to the limitations they have (staffing, customer service) but take a collaborative approach to trying to avoid this issue in the future. It couldn't hurt to make the manager realize that you are a local photographer who takes his copyright very seriously. At a minimum they may pay a little, tiny bit more attention to whether the photos look like pro images. Worst thing that happens (if you maintaint a professional demeanor) is nothing.

Bingo.

You can't fix what happened, you suffered no monitary loss (this time) so you will get nothing in court, but you can let the manager know so it doesn't happen in the future. Be cool, but explain that you are a little concerned that it happened.

[RDKirk]

The official Wal-Mart corporate policy is to ask for some evidence of authorization to print photographs that appear to be professional. They even have a copyright release form for persons to sign testifying that they have permission to copy.

The reason Wal-Mart does this is because the Professional Photographers of America has a "Recon" sting program that has set them up and caught them violating professional copyrights several times in the past, threatening them with court action. If your local Wal-Mart is lax in that regard, you can call the PPA in Atlanta and they'll sic a Recon team on that store. PPA has deep pockets for this kind of thing.

Obviously, the Wal-Mart policy is a "Cover Our Okole" action--it's not airtight, perfect, or foolproof. Yes, it's up to the judgment of the clerk or local manager whether to ask the questions. Yes, the customer can lie on the form.

They're trying to strike compromise between doing "due diligence" in avoiding being a party to copyright violation without it being so onerous a process that they chase away business.

[welkcar]

For those that said I should have given the woman something for being so honest, I did. I gave her a discount of $2 off every print and printed a very nice 11x14 portrait for a surprise.

With respect to Walmart, I went to one of our local stores and talked to the photo clerks and department manager. As it turned out, it was not the store that printed them. However, the photo clerk and manager both stated that it was against Walmart policy to do the printing that was done, and in their opinion, it was a violation of federal copyright laws.

Just for curiosity, I spoke with my attorney. Basically, for what has happened, it was a violation of our copyright laws but at the end of the day, there wouldn't be much to recover from Walmart.

He did mention something I was unaware of. He said that if the photos had been registered with the US Patent office, it would have been a different ballgame. Significant penalties to the violator as well as the violator having to pay the plaintiff's attorney fees. He indicated it is a quick process and you can register a batch of photos over the internet for a nominal fee. Personally, I don't think I will be doing this as finding out about this incident was likely a fluke. But it is interesting.

The woman just picked up the photos and let me know what store it was. And Walmart did not have her sign a release, against their policy.

[JasonBr]

I assume you will be going to visit the wal-mart that made the prints?

[HappySnapper90]

I have no intention of pursuing anything with this woman. But my question is Walmart. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that they have possibly violated copyright laws 208 times.


Walmart? No. As much as I dislike them, no the woman violated the copyright by hitting the button that she had the right to make a copy of the photo when prompted.

I've read many posts about Walmart unwilling to make a print of a photo, even from a digital file, of a photo that looked too professional without consent that the person wanting the print owned the copyright or could produce such right.

[Mike R]

When I give someone a CD I lighhtscribe whether permission is granted or not for the person with the CD to make prints. My copyright goes on the back of prints I sell with the hope that it will be looked at by Wal Mart. I wont put my name on the front of a print

[DDCSD]

Just for curiosity, I spoke with my attorney. Basically, for what has happened, it was a violation of our copyright laws but at the end of the day, there wouldn't be much to recover from Walmart.

He did mention something I was unaware of. He said that if the photos had been registered with the US Patent office, it would have been a different ballgame. Significant penalties to the violator as well as the violator having to pay the plaintiff's attorney fees. He indicated it is a quick process and you can register a batch of photos over the internet for a nominal fee. Personally, I don't think I will be doing this as finding out about this incident was likely a fluke. But it is interesting.

How long has it been since you "published" the photos? If less than 3 months, you can still register them and have full protection and rights to sue. The process is easy and quick, but it takes up to a year (or more) for the process to be completed. They allow you 3 months from the date of publish, or two months from the date of infringement (whichever is shorter).


With that said, I really don't think your fight is with Wal-Mart. If the woman had scanned and printed them with her Epson all-in-one at home, would you try and go after Epson?

You've said that you're happy with what she has done to recitfy the situation, so other than going and having a talk with the photo manager at the store and suggesting that they question people that bring in wedding photos just a little bit more, there really isn't all that much more that can be done here.

[Tarzanman]

You guys are crazy. I *know* I will catch heat for this but I don't care. Any photographer I hire to take photos of ME and my family/friends will understand that their copyright goes out the window since it is MY image they are selling to me.

The notion that a photographer would have the gall to sue over photos that they were already paid to take and deliver is ridiculous on its face. You were already paid fairly for your work and delivered goods. Stop trying to live off of royalties like some music industry schill. You want more money from me? Then provide more services for me.

If a customer is using your work to make a profit and not giving you a cut, then that is one thing.... but copies for private use or to distribute to friends and family? You (and those of similar mind) could give Uncle Scrooge and Bernie Madoff lessons on greed.

[chakalakasp]

He did mention something I was unaware of. He said that if the photos had been registered with the US Patent office, it would have been a different ballgame.

Not the Patent Office, the Copyright Office.

And even if you registered the copyrights on this one, it's very unlikely you'd recover anything. Who are you going to sue? Walmart? What did Walmart do? The lady? You're gonna sue the honest lady who came to you feeling horrible about what she did?

There are instances of infringement worth pursing. This is definitely not one of them.

[chakalakasp]

You guys are crazy. I *know* I will catch heat for this but I don't care. Any photographer I hire to take photos of ME and my family/friends will understand that their copyright goes out the window since it is MY image they are selling to me.

The notion that a photographer would have the gall to sue over photos that they were already paid to take and deliver is ridiculous on its face. You were already paid fairly for your work and delivered goods. Stop trying to live off of royalties like some music industry schill. You want more money from me? Then provide more services for me.

If a customer is using your work to make a profit and not giving you a cut, then that is one thing.... but copies for private use or to distribute to friends and family? You (and those of similar mind) could give Uncle Scrooge and Bernie Madoff lessons on greed.

...and don't feed the trolls, folks.

[cdifoto]

You guys are crazy. I *know* I will catch heat for this but I don't care. Any photographer I hire to take photos of ME and my family/friends will understand that their copyright goes out the window since it is MY image they are selling to me.

The notion that a photographer would have the gall to sue over photos that they were already paid to take and deliver is ridiculous on its face. You were already paid fairly for your work and delivered goods. Stop trying to live off of royalties like some music industry schill. You want more money from me? Then provide more services for me.

If a customer is using your work to make a profit and not giving you a cut, then that is one thing.... but copies for private use or to distribute to friends and family? You (and those of similar mind) could give Uncle Scrooge and Bernie Madoff lessons on greed.
You are crazy. I *know* I will catch heat for this but I don't care.

The law supercedes your feelings on the matter.

At any rate, don't flatter yourself. There are only royalties to live off of if your image is worth buying. :D

[GSH]

You guys are crazy. I *know* I will catch heat for this but I don't care. Any photographer I hire to take photos of ME and my family/friends will understand that their copyright goes out the window since it is MY image they are selling to me.


Feel free to make that clear to any Photographer you wish to hire in future. Then ask yourself why he/she just laughed in your face as they walk out the door :)

[Box Brownie]

You guys are crazy. I *know* I will catch heat for this but I don't care. Any photographer I hire to take photos of ME and my family/friends will understand that their copyright goes out the window since it is MY image they are selling to me.

The notion that a photographer would have the gall to sue over photos that they were already paid to take and deliver is ridiculous on its face. You were already paid fairly for your work and delivered goods. Stop trying to live off of royalties like some music industry schill. You want more money from me? Then provide more services for me.

If a customer is using your work to make a profit and not giving you a cut, then that is one thing.... but copies for private use or to distribute to friends and family? You (and those of similar mind) could give Uncle Scrooge and Bernie Madoff lessons on greed.

An arrangement between the hirer and the hired will surely cover the issue of copyright and AFAIK in many (all?) jurisdictions unless explicitly "given over to the hirer" copyright remains with the photographer.

Again everything I have read about wedding photographers says that 'they' should have a contract and if the tog wishes in their business model to give up copyright then that is their choice but in the case of the OP she had her copyright rights infringed.

Your point though possibly seen as valid by many consumers does not account for the law that protects the photographers rights both legal & moral. An analogy that you may wish to consider is ~ say you wrote an article and had it published with your photographs of your family members and the arrangement was that is was just for that one off issue of the publication such as a parish magazine but in the contract you signed the publisher reserved the right to republish it as they saw fit say in a national newspaper without a fee. If it was then so reprinted you would have no grounds in law against them because you signed the contract.

As for your statement "The notion that a photographer would have the gall to sue over photos that they were already paid to take and deliver is ridiculous on its face. You were already paid fairly for your work and delivered goods." This surely will be ruled by the contract and potentially every togs contract could be different and I have no doubt there are some that would hike the price for the sitting and package of prints if they saw loss of reprints being insisted upon and that is surely the case with many wedding togs.

Why do I take the time to have a say when I do not even make money off my image making, well I sell B2B and business is all about contract and making working relationships that work for both parties and what you infer would be unfair on the photographer, would it not ???

Now wheres the ladder to get off my soapbox :lol:

[Tarzanman]

An arrangement between the hirer and the hired will surely cover the issue of copyright and AFAIK in many (all?) jurisdictions unless explicitly "given over to the hirer" copyright remains with the photographer.........

In the interest of brevity I will sum up my position instead of doing a point-by-counterpoint.

Copyright law in this country is quite broken (my opinion), and even the bits of the law that are practical contain many gray areas subject to interpretation (i.e. fair use).

The problem with your analogy is that the licensing party is a *publisher*. Publishers publish. It seems (to me anyway) that use/circulation would be addressed with an entity that *whose entire business* is the distribution of works created by 3rd parties.... meaning that said entity receives compensation for dissemination of such works (either directly or as a result of advertising). In that situation, royalties are acceptable.

However, wedding/private event photography is a different animal. I consider such photographs commissioned works whose ownership (and accompanying rights) are traded along with the tog's labor for their fee.

Example: If I rent a studio or sound-man for a one-time recording of my garage band playing our songs/demos in our garage (or some other sound stage that my band has rented)... then by what right would the sound-engineer claim copyright over our recorded music?

Ridiculous. The wedding photographer is analogous to the sound man. Their labor (which they are already being paid for) does not endow them with any special rights that any other laborer at the event provides. Should the wedding singer sue the videographer? Are the caterers due royalties for any hors'doeuvre shared later with family/friends? Get real!

[cdifoto]

In the interest of brevity I will sum up my position instead of doing a point-by-counterpoint.

Copyright law in this country is quite broken (my opinion), and even the bits of the law that are practical contain many gray areas subject to interpretation (i.e. fair use).

The problem with your analogy is that the licensing party is a *publisher*. Publishers publish. It seems (to me anyway) that use/circulation would be addressed with an entity that *whose entire business* is the distribution of works created by 3rd parties.... meaning that said entity receives compensation for dissemination of such works (either directly or as a result of advertising). In that situation, royalties are acceptable.

However, wedding/private event photography is a different animal. I consider such photographs commissioned works whose ownership (and accompanying rights) are traded along with the tog's labor for their fee.

Example: If I rent a studio or sound-man for a one-time recording of my garage band playing our songs/demos in our garage (or some other sound stage that my band has rented)... then by what right would the sound-engineer claim copyright over our recorded music?

Ridiculous.
As ridiculous as you may think it is, it's reality. Your solution is simple:

Find a photographer who will hand the copyright over to you. They are out there.

Just don't expect to get it from any and all photographers via bullying. You don't have the legal grounds. I and a few others have explained the purpose of retaining copyright in this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=655118). And it has nothing to do with royalties. There's information about how it applies to wedding photographers in there as well.

[Tarzanman]

Begging your pardon, but you seem to completely disregard the rights of the individuals of your clients as well as the fundamental principle behind copyright as a social contract (except for the bits that let you charge royalties or use another person's image without *express* permission).

this post in particular (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=7588259&postcount=77) in particular is telling as to how unevenly you weigh the rights of one individual's image vs another. (Based on what... their capacity to sue or defame you?)

Begging your pardon again, but whether someone finds their public image important to their standing/well being (celebrity or not) is not your call to make (unless you happen to be their talent agent).

I am quite sure that there are photographers out there that are not concerned with proofs/raws/copies/whatever after a wedding gig has closed. The idea, as suggested, that the tog in the original post should sue is the paragon of greediness.... as are some of the contractual terms that wedding shooters like to put into their agreements.

Explain to me how what you are doing is any less deplorable than a record company squeezing a client?

[Box Brownie]

Whether a law is "broken" is as you say a matter of opinion and whether they have grey areas open to mis-interpretation is moot and solvable in a court of law but to imply that anyone should ride rough shod over anothers rights simply because of "your" interpretation of a contract/legally binding agreement is the road to chaos & anarchy if taken to the (extreme) conclusion.

In passing, out of interest, what do you do for a living??? If you care to say, as it is always interesting to see where folk are coming from when they argue such a case as you do.

[cdifoto]

Begging your pardon, but you seem to completely disregard the rights of the individuals of your clients as well as the fundamental principle behind copyright as a social contract (except for the bits that let you charge royalties or use another person's image without *express* permission).

this post in particular (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=7588259&postcount=77) in particular is telling as to how unevenly you weigh the rights of one individual's image vs another. (Based on what... their capacity to sue or defame you?)

No it doesn't. It just drives home the point that some people think too much of their image. Reality is there's not much for a wedding photographer to get out of selling an image to a third party that isn't directly involved in the wedding.

Begging your pardon again, but whether someone finds their public image important to their standing/well being (celebrity or not) is not your call to make (unless you happen to be their talent agent).

I am quite sure that there are photographers out there that are not concerned with proofs/raws/copies/whatever after a wedding gig has closed. The idea, as suggested, that the tog in the original post should sue is the paragon of greediness.... as are some of the contractual terms that wedding shooters like to put into their agreements.

Explain to me how what you are doing is any less deplorable than a record company squeezing a client?
That's why we have contracts. You find the photographer with the contract that's right for you. You don't try to scream BLOODY MURDER after the fact or try to tell every photographer who does it the traditional way that they're wrong, have no concerns for their clients, and/or are greedy.

[Tarzanman]

Currently working a job as an engineer, but before this job I (partially) supported myself doing somewhat more creative work mixing music for dancers/cheerleading squads.

Its similar, but not exactly the same. Some folks in the business get upset if they hear their mix being used by more than one entity (or an entity other than the one they sold it to)... but I have always found such concerns ludicrous in the least and hypocritical at their worst. Especially given that *many* of those very same music mixers violated copyright to create the mix in the first place ! (mp3's downloaded from underground internet sites)

I don't begrudge photographers any copyright protection... I just feel (strongly) that Betty-Sue's wedding is the wrong place for such protections to be applied.

If you want to get paid per physical photo or earn royalties off your work then you should either:
1. Work for the AP (that makes money for distributing it)
2. Open a print lab

Strong-arming a customer that has already paid you in good faith for pictures of THEM during an important moment in their lives is.... sketchy at best, IMO. Bad karma for sure

[Box Brownie]

Currently working a job as an engineer, but before this job I (partially) supported myself doing somewhat more creative work mixing music for dancers/cheerleading squads.

Its similar, but not exactly the same. Some folks in the business get upset if they hear their mix being used by more than one entity (or an entity other than the one they sold it to)... but I have always found such concerns ludicrous in the least and hypocritical at their worst. Especially given that *many* of those very same music mixers violated copyright to create the mix in the first place ! (mp3's downloaded from underground internet sites)

I don't begrudge photographers any copyright protection... I just feel (strongly) that Betty-Sue's wedding is the wrong place for such protections to be applied.

If you want to get paid per physical photo or earn royalties off your work then you should either:
1. Work for the AP (that makes money for distributing it)
2. Open a print lab

Strong-arming a customer that has already paid you in good faith for pictures of THEM during an important moment in their lives is.... sketchy at best, IMO. Bad karma for sure

Thanks for the background and 'where you come from' on the matter ~ I surmise that on the aspect especially on wedding work there will not/never be a meeting of minds hereabouts.

But please give me your thoughts on this scenario ~ I one day (as per my sig) would like to sell my images, currently I hope to test the water someday soonish by offering prints & greetings cards.

So, I will be selling prints of my copyright works to individuals. If a person who has bought one of my prints is told how lovely that image is by a relative/neighbour/friend and the buyer says I got it from - link here for site/address/contact - but he or she does not like the price says we can I just have it copied "it must be cheaper to get copied at XXXX " (name your favourite high street general lab). Now whether such a copy is given as a gift by the original buyer or paid for by the second person i.e. no profit intended or sought (just the cost of the copy involved) this is surely a violation of my copyright and further a breaking of the purchase contract stated/infered or otherwise.

What I describe is possibly the simplest form of contract but could equally be open to abuse such as copying of CDs to MP3 for giving away to friends but just because making those MP3s has become common practice does not make it right or make the scenario I describe "right" because of such actions with other media i.e. music.

Note - I am not talking about royalties but simple commercial sales of copyrighted imagery.

???

[cdifoto]

Strong-arming a customer that has already paid you in good faith for pictures of THEM during an important moment in their lives is.... sketchy at best, IMO. Bad karma for sure
This is true only if if the photographer says verbally that they'll sign over copyright while wording the contract to say otherwise. It's not strong-arming, sketchy, or bad karma if everyone understands & agrees to the terms of the contract.

You can always pay more for the images to be assigned total copyright to you. I guarantee though that unless you're hiring a total newbie, it won't be cheap. If you read more posts than just that one you singled out in that other thread, you'll understand why.

[Tarzanman]

Maybe my point is getting lost in some of the details. It is the practice of (effectively) licensing photos of people to themselves where there is no intent to distribute said works for profit that I find predatory.

Frankly, I find the opposing opinion to by hypocritical. If a magic copyright wand were to be waved and EVERYONE enforced their rights then photographers would have absolutely nothing and no one to shoot without having release forms or licensing agreements for absolutely everything and everyone in the FOV.

-The print lab technician would be able to exert copyright over the images that he & his machine 'interpret' from digital format to print (after all, he is the one who is *really* losing money if copies are obtained elsewhere, despite his work)

-The camera shop tech who serviced the mirror/prism in the camera body would be able to demand royalties for any photos taken with the camera after it had been cleaned (after all, without his/her efforts, all the images taken would be dust ridden).

Etc etc etc. How many of you wedding togs with assistants pay the assistant *every* time a photo they did PP work on gets sold/printed? (Almost none, I'd wager).

I see wedding photography as a service, not a licensing agreement. The situation would be different if I were say... televising my wedding and making money from product placement.... or putting pictures of the wedding in a photo spread which I was being paid for. I think most of you will agree that that isn't usually the case. Hoarding copyright over Betty-Sue's wedding photos she wants to send to friends and family is draconian and greedy.

I don't feel that a tog who was paid 3 months ago for a work(s) that I commissioned is owed another nickel if I want to duplicate the product for my own private use. Commercial use, yes. Commercial use is why copyright exists, to make sure that wealth generated by the work goes to the creator/originator.... but even that has limits. Copyright is not indefinite (despite the many efforts of lobbyists) and copyright has limitations regarding fair use.

Personally, copies (whether printed or electronic)of photos of my wedding to friends & family (most of whom were probably there) certainly falls under 'fair use' in my opinion.

Not to belittle your profession, but you, your camera, and your business model don't deserve EXTRA rights (which using copies of my image for your advertising purposes, while I cannot certainly is) just because you are likening yourself to the creator of the work. Sorry. You aren't. Take your subject (me) away, the setting/venue (I paid for) and then show me how well your 'creation' depicting the event would hold up. At BEST, the relationship between a wedding photographer and the client is a partnership... and rights within a partnership are to be split evenly, imo.

-EDIT-
This is not to say that there aren't circumstances where a photographer might want to abridge some of the terms, but the situation brought up in the original post is certainly NOT one of them.

[cdifoto]

Maybe my point is getting lost in some of the details. It is the practice of (effectively) licensing photos of people to themselves where there is no intent to distribute said works for profit that I find predatory.

Frankly, I find the opposing opinion to by hypocritical. If a magic copyright wand were to be waved and EVERYONE enforced their rights then photographers would have absolutely nothing and no one to shoot without having release forms or licensing agreements for absolutely everything and everyone in the FOV.

-The print lab technician would be able to exert copyright over the images that he & his machine 'interpret' from digital format to print (after all, he is the one who is *really* losing money if copies are obtained elsewhere, despite his work)

-The camera shop tech who serviced the mirror/prism in the camera body would be able to demand royalties for any photos taken with the camera after it had been cleaned (after all, without his/her efforts, all the images taken would be dust ridden).

Etc etc etc. How many of you wedding togs with assistants pay the assistant *every* time a photo they did PP work on gets sold/printed? (Almost none, I'd wager).

I see wedding photography as a service, not a licensing agreement. The situation would be different if I were say... televising my wedding and making money from product placement.... or putting pictures of the wedding in a photo spread which I was being paid for. I think most of you will agree that that isn't usually the case. Hoarding copyright over Betty-Sue's wedding photos she wants to send to friends and family is draconian and greedy.

I don't feel that a tog who was paid 3 months ago for a work(s) that I commissioned is owed another nickel if I want to duplicate the product for my own private use. Commercial use, yes. Commercial use is why copyright exists, to make sure that wealth generated by the work goes to the creator/originator.... but even that has limits. Copyright is not indefinite (despite the many efforts of lobbyists) and copyright has limitations regarding fair use.

Personally, copies (whether printed or electronic)of photos of my wedding to friends & family (most of whom were probably there) certainly falls under 'fair use' in my opinion.

Not to belittle your profession, but you, your camera, and your business model don't deserve EXTRA rights (which using copies of my image for your advertising purposes, while I cannot certainly is) just because you are likening yourself to the creator of the work. Sorry. You aren't. Take your subject (me) away, the setting/venue (I paid for) and then show me how well your 'creation' depicting the event would hold up. At BEST, the relationship between a wedding photographer and the client is a partnership... and rights within a partnership are to be split evenly, imo.

-EDIT-
This is not to say that there aren't circumstances where a photographer might want to abridge some of the terms, but the situation brought up in the original post is certainly NOT one of them.
For most photographers that do not hand over copyright, the fee you pay isn't for the images. It's for the service. You then buy the photos you want whether it's in a traditional print enlargement, am album, DVD slideshow, or any other format. One of which can be a CD for self-printing. Since it's a separate product, it costs extra. Since it allows printing oneself and kills all product profit the photographer can make beyond his shooting fee, it will inherently be rather expensive.

Would you rather pay a $5000 photographer an extra $1000 to get all the images on CD or would you rather go with a $6000 photographer who includes it automatically?

Same thing. Same product. Just depends how you look at it. ;) :)

As for assistants - they don't even shoot. They just set up lights, schlep gear, etc. Second photographers shoot but they sign usage rights to the main photographer (some hand over copyright as well but I don't), and they pretty much never do any PP. They give the images to the main photographer as-is.

As I said before, a client doesn't need to hold the copyright to make prints. They can be given a usage release instead. I really wish you'd educate yourself in that other thread. It'd do you a world of good. Since you do not seem to desire education but would rather just argue from the standpoint of someone who has no idea how copyright even works, I'm going to discontinue my participation in this thread as well as the other.

Again, learn what copyright is and what it means before arguing.

I feel that murder should be legal if I really really really really really can't stand someone. Does that make me right? Does that mean I can just kill you off and I won't go to jail because I FELT that was a fair death? Didn't think so.

[Tarzanman]

I think you're missing my point entirely, but you'll probably dislike my other opinions on the matter even more, so I'll agree to disagree with you.

[cdifoto]

No I get your point entirely. However, you're attacking the character of artists & business people who are doing nothing more than exercising their legal rights, based on a misunderstanding of what those rights actually are and what they really mean.

I've said it before and I'll say it one last time:

If you want to own the copyright, get a contract that gives it to you.

[chakalakasp]

If you want to get paid per physical photo or earn royalties off your work then you should either:
1. Work for the AP (that makes money for distributing it)
2. Open a print lab


It's always amusing when people who have no idea what they are talking about try to give advice to professionals on how to run their businesses.

I look forward to your future posts and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[chakalakasp]

I think you're missing my point entirely, but you'll probably dislike my other opinions on the matter even more, so I'll agree to disagree with you.

The problem here is not that people don't understand you, it's that you fundamentally misunderstand what copyright is and how it works and have no understanding of photography business models. You are using your ignorance of law as a shield to argue your way around ethical constructs that don't exist in the real world. As has been explained to you again and again, if you would take a few minutes of your life to actually read up on this topic instead of just BSing your way around it, you would probably make arguments that make sense in reality and not just in your head. We probably still wouldn't agree with you, but at least we wouldn't have to punctuate your paragraphs with facepalms.

Would you let someone who didn't understand the concept of conservation of momentum help you design an automobile airbag system? Then why do you think you can lecture professional photographers about copyright and business models when it's pretty clear that you have little to no experience or understanding of either?

[Tarzanman]

I wasn't giving anyone advice. Whose posts were you reading?

Let me sum up my position by saying this:

If your business model is such that it necessitates you suing customers for material that they should already have rights to/be entitled to (like pictures of THEM at THEIR wedding), then there's something wrong.

[chakalakasp]

I wasn't giving anyone advice. Whose posts were you reading?

Let me sum up my position by saying this:

If your business model is such that it necessitates you suing customers for material that they should already have rights to/be entitled to (like pictures of THEM at THEIR wedding), then there's something wrong.

"Giving advice" is my kind codeword for "spouting off about how everyone else is doing it wrong but that you know better".

Nobody sues customers; that's not the point. You'd be stupid to sue a prints client over making copies at Walmart. For one, you'd never find a lawyer to take it on contingency. For another, that client would go around and destroy your biz with word-of-mouth.

But that's not really what you've been arguing. You've been arguing that the entire model is wrong; that not only is it silly to sue prints customers, but that prints customers should be granted copyright simply because they hired you to shoot an event that they threw. These are two wildly different concepts. The likelihood that you will get sued for making a copy of an audio CD and giving it to your friend is low. This does not change the fact that buying a CD does not give you the copyright to the CD, nor does it mean that the owner of the copyright for the materials on the CD must explicitly allow you permission to make copies of the CD for your friends. You can get away with speeding most of the time, too; ditto with running red lights. It doesn't mean that those things are legal.

It's nice of you to back off of the silliness you were posting before, but don't pretend that's what you were saying all along.

[DDCSD]

Example: If I rent a studio or sound-man for a one-time recording of my garage band playing our songs/demos in our garage (or some other sound stage that my band has rented)... then by what right would the sound-engineer claim copyright over our recorded music?

This is not a good analogy if the studio or sound man is simply recording the music and not actively producing it or writing the songs. While part of what the photographer does is "simply" recording the event, much of it is actual production work (posing, lighting, etc).

That, and the client signs a contract stating that they understand what terms have been agreed to. If you sign something stating that you understand and agree to the terms set forth for the price that was paid, you really can't be "strong armed".

[Tarzanman]

"Giving advice" is my kind codeword for "spouting off about how everyone else is doing it wrong but that you know better".

Nobody sues customers; that's not the point. You'd be stupid to sue a prints client over making copies at Walmart. For one, you'd never find a lawyer to take it on contingency. For another, that client would go around and destroy your biz with word-of-mouth.

But that's not really what you've been arguing. You've been arguing that the entire model is wrong; that not only is it silly to sue prints customers, but that prints customers should be granted copyright simply because they hired you to shoot an event that they threw. These are two wildly different concepts. The likelihood that you will get sued for making a copy of an audio CD and giving it to your friend is low. This does not change the fact that buying a CD does not give you the copyright to the CD, nor does it mean that the owner of the copyright for the materials on the CD must explicitly allow you permission to make copies of the CD for your friends. You can get away with speeding most of the time, too; ditto with running red lights. It doesn't mean that those things are legal.

It's nice of you to back off of the silliness you were posting before, but don't pretend that's what you were saying all along.

Don't confuse what I have said with how you'd like to characterize it. I'm not backing off of anything. I've posted more than enough already on this thread for anyone willing to wade through my walls of text to get a pretty good idea of what I think and where I'm coming from.

If there's an inconsistency between anything I've written then point it out and I'll elaborate for you.