Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 04 Mar 2013 (Monday) 10:39
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

who owns the right.

 
Data_Android
Member
Avatar
86 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Florida USA
     
Mar 04, 2013 10:39 |  #1

I know it can get very complicated, this one seems to be one of them.
1. A theater has a policy that no pictures can be taken during a show. Someone takes a picture anyways and posts it on facebook. What can be done, by the theater owner or by the actor/s to have the photo removed from face book and hand over the original?

Another case.
The theater owner asks a photographer to come to the show and take pictures. The theater owner wants to use these pictures on his theater website.
There is no written contract, it was verbally agreed on.

The Photographer hands his pictures in low resolution for the web (72dpi) with his logo and info in the right hand corner on every picture. The theater owner asks the photographer for the originals without the logo and the photographer refuses.

To make it a bit more complicated, an actor wants one of the photos for his personal website and asks the photographer for it. The photographer wants to sell the photo to the actor. The actor asks the theater owner and he gives it to the actor for free but with the logo of the photographer, the actor removes the logo (just by cropping), the photographer threatens to sue.

What exactly can/can not be done?


For sale
Nothing at this time

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Matthew ­ Patrick
Senior Member
395 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Jul 2008
Location: New England
     
Mar 04, 2013 10:47 |  #2

Removing a watermark carries a severe penalty. You can talk to an IP Atty. or go to the ASMP website and research intellectual property laws.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ATP
Goldmember
Avatar
2,550 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 275
Joined May 2009
Location: Tampa
     
Mar 04, 2013 11:18 |  #3

I took the pic I OWN THE RIGHTS!!! I dont care who the actor/theater is..I TOOK IT I OWN IT. Yu want it? BUY THE COPYRIGHTS (thats if I wanna sell them)


Canon 7d and a Bunch of other sh*t
website is down | FB FAN PAGE (external link) |TWITTER (external link)| Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thomas ­ Campbell
Goldmember
Avatar
2,105 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Kingwood, TX
     
Mar 04, 2013 11:21 |  #4

The theater owner asks a photographer to come to the show and take pictures. The theater owner wants to use these pictures on his theater website.
There is no written contract, it was verbally agreed on.

Depends on the agreement.

The photographer was stupid for not getting everything in a formal contract.


Houston Wedding Photographer (external link)
Houston Sports Photographer (external link)
Current Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
4100xpb
Member
66 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Vancouver
     
Mar 04, 2013 11:25 |  #5

1. The theatre owner can't do much as far as I know. Photographer owns the rights to the photo. They violated the terms of their ticket, but the only thing the theatre can do is revoke the ticket/kick them out. After it's been done, too late.

Tha actor has a better case in they could argue the photographer doesen't have the right to reproduce their likeness. Likewise the playwright (and maybe set/costume designer?) could argue you are creating a derivative work of their material. Theatre and rights can get pretty complicated.

2. Photog owns the rights again. Theatre must negotiate for useage in the absence of any other contract. Of course the theatre could change their tune and say the photog didn't have permission to take the pictures, and then you'd be back at case 1.

Same for the actor - photog owns the rights, watermarked or not. Doesn't matter where he gets them from, he needs a license from the photographer to use them.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Data_Android
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
86 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Florida USA
     
Mar 04, 2013 11:44 as a reply to  @ 4100xpb's post |  #6

I also think that the theater owner is SooL, it's a "he said - she said" game, that most likely the photographer would win.

But what about the actor? he never gave permission, nor did he sign a model release form, doesn't the photographer brake the law by making money of a photograph without having a model release from the actor/s?


For sale
Nothing at this time

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 186
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Mar 04, 2013 11:58 |  #7

Data_Android wrote in post #15675410 (external link)
I also think that the theater owner is SooL, it's a "he said - she said" game, that most likely the photographer would win.

But what about the actor? he never gave permission, nor did he sign a model release form, doesn't the photographer brake the law by making money of a photograph without having a model release from the actor/s?

In most cases that is only if their likeness is used to endorse a product. Slap their photo up beside a photo of some product, or throw some words on the photo in relation to selling something, and then there is a case.

Take a photo of someone and sell the photo itself? Generally legal. There was one Canadian case where a woman sued over some street art, and apparently won, so everything is likely best considered some shade of grey.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Mar 04, 2013 12:52 |  #8

Luckless wrote in post #15675473 (external link)
In most cases that is only if their likeness is used to endorse a product. Slap their photo up beside a photo of some product, or throw some words on the photo in relation to selling something, and then there is a case.

Take a photo of someone and sell the photo itself? Generally legal. There was one Canadian case where a woman sued over some street art, and apparently won, so everything is likely best considered some shade of grey.

Applicable to Quebec only.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CosmoKid
Goldmember
Avatar
4,235 posts
Likes: 10
Joined May 2009
Location: NJ
     
Mar 04, 2013 12:52 |  #9

There is no such thing as worldwide copyright law. Where are you located?


Joe- 2 bodies, L 2.8 zoom trilogy and a couple of primes
iRocktheShot.com (external link) - Portfolio (external link)

Gear/Feedback
Facebook "Fan" Page (external link) -

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jimconnerphoto
Goldmember
Avatar
2,165 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Southern California
     
Mar 04, 2013 13:15 |  #10

In your situation you have copyright and releases.
You do own the copyright to the image. That does not mean the content of the image is also yours. You may need a model release or a property release to use the image.
Since you own the image itself anyone who wants to use the image needs your permission.


Wedding and Portraits www.jimconnerphoto.com (external link)
Commercial Work www.jamesdconner.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,725 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Maryland
     
Mar 04, 2013 15:47 |  #11

1 ... depends on WHY there is a no photography policy. If it is only so you dont distract the actors during a performance. Or is it because the play and visuals are copyrighted? ala, circ de sole. In one case they cant do anything. The other, you are liable for copyright infringement.

The second, both the theater and the actor are in violation of copyright. And the actor has the additional charge of removing the watermark.


www.darkslisemag.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,986 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 532
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 04, 2013 18:02 |  #12

Data_Android wrote in post #15675158 (external link)
I know it can get very complicated, this one seems to be one of them.
1. A theater has a policy that no pictures can be taken during a show. Someone takes a picture anyways and posts it on facebook. What can be done, by the theater owner or by the actor/s to have the photo removed from face book and hand over the original?

At that point, the theater can't do anything because the only right they had was the right to eject the photographer during the show.

However, set theater design and costumes are copyrighted and usually registered (if professional), so the pictures taken can't be used without license. Not the theater's license, the copyright owner's license.

Also, if the photographer intends to use the images for his own promotion, he will need model releases from the actors.

Another case.
The theater owner asks a photographer to come to the show and take pictures. The theater owner wants to use these pictures on his theater website.
There is no written contract, it was verbally agreed on.

The theater may have license to use photographs of the set and costumes for their own advertisement. At any rate, as the user it will be their problem.

The Photographer hands his pictures in low resolution for the web (72dpi) with his logo and info in the right hand corner on every picture. The theater owner asks the photographer for the originals without the logo and the photographer refuses.

The photographer owns the copyright to the image even if he doesn't have license to use the images of the set and costumes.

Both sides depart miffed at each other.

To make it a bit more complicated, an actor wants one of the photos for his personal website and asks the photographer for it. The photographer wants to sell the photo to the actor. The actor asks the theater owner and he gives it to the actor for free but with the logo of the photographer, the actor removes the logo (just by cropping), the photographer threatens to sue.

The photographer owns the copyright--hopefully he gets it registered quickly. Removing the logo will increase the statutory penalties. However, it's likely the lawsuit won't be worth it.

The Copyright Office in the US is investigating a copyright "small claims court" for such cases.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,986 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 532
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 04, 2013 18:04 |  #13

CosmoKid wrote in post #15675691 (external link)
There is no such thing as worldwide copyright law. Where are you located?

However, most industrialized nations are signatories of the Berne Conventions, although some have some significant variations.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,269 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1552
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Mar 04, 2013 18:33 |  #14

Data_Android wrote in post #15675158 (external link)
1. A theater has a policy that no pictures can be taken during a show. Someone takes a picture anyways and posts it on facebook. What can be done, by the theater owner or by the actor/s to have the photo removed from face book and hand over the original?

Nothing. The law is clear that while the owner of the property can forbid photography, their only recourse if a photographer ignores them is to ask the person to leave, or get the police to arrest them for trespass. Any photographs taken in the meantime are the property of the photographer (they own the copyright) and they are free t use them within the law - which mean they can display them in a gallery, sell prints, put them in a photo book or display them on Facebook. What the photographer can't do is use the image for promotional purposes - for that you need a release from any one in the image.

Another case.
The theater owner asks a photographer to come to the show and take pictures. The theater owner wants to use these pictures on his theater website.
There is no written contract, it was verbally agreed on.

The Photographer hands his pictures in low resolution for the web (72dpi) with his logo and info in the right hand corner on every picture. The theater owner asks the photographer for the originals without the logo and the photographer refuses.

They go to court and ask the judge to decide which of them is being reasonable and which unreasonable. Each party had a different idea of what "use" meant. As both of them were stupid and didn't clearly document what the photographer was supposed to provide they must either come to an agreement or get a judge to decide.

To make it a bit more complicated, an actor wants one of the photos for his personal website and asks the photographer for it. The photographer wants to sell the photo to the actor. The actor asks the theater owner and he gives it to the actor for free but with the logo of the photographer, the actor removes the logo (just by cropping), the photographer threatens to sue.

The photographer can sue the actor for infringement of copyright as they are using the image without permission. If this occurs in the USA the actor has also committed a separate offence by removing the watermark, which carries an additional penalty of between $2500 - $25,000. Alternatively they could just contact the web hosting company that hosts the actors site and issue a DMCA take down notice to have the image removed.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Phil ­ V
Goldmember
1,977 posts
Likes: 75
Joined Jan 2005
Location: S Yorks UK
     
Mar 04, 2013 19:00 |  #15

CosmoKid wrote in post #15675691 (external link)
There is no such thing as worldwide copyright law. Where are you located?

ANother bad day on POTN. The only sensible post and it gets ignored.:cry:


Gear List
website: South Yorkshire Wedding photographer in Doncaster (external link)
Twitter (external link)Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,438 views & 0 likes for this thread
who owns the right.
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is xDeeKayx
954 guests, 298 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.