HELP! HELP! HELP!

collins82002

collins82002

Suspended / Banned
Messages
251
Name
chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I am really at the end of my teather can someone help me?? The photographer who done my photos for my wedding fluffed up my wedding album so he gave me the original disk. Now i want to make a collage collection to go on my wall.
I took the selected images to a supermarket to get them copied, when i came to collect them they would not allow me to have the photos because of the copyright on the image. I am unable to locate the photographer to get permission of copyright and my wife is rather upset over this as he has already messed up the wedding album. Can anyone suggest a way that i can remove the copyright or get around it.

Regards
chris.
 
collins82002 said:
I am really at the end of my teather can someone help me?? The photographer who done my photos for my wedding fluffed up my wedding album so he gave me the original disk. Now i want to make a collage collection to go on my wall.
I took the selected images to a supermarket to get them copied, when i came to collect them they would not allow me to have the photos because of the copyright on the image. I am unable to locate the photographer to get permission of copyright and my wife is rather upset over this as he has already messed up the wedding album. Can anyone suggest a way that i can remove the copyright or get around it.

Regards
chris.
Click to expand...

you need to contact the photographer and get some sort of letter from him to take to the printers to prove he has given you permission to reproduce the images.
 
Call the photographer, explain the issue and ask them to send you an non-copyrighted set? They're your pics after-all, assuming you didn't have some kind of print only contract with them...

edit - or what whitewash said ;)
 
whitewash said:
you need to contact the photographer and get some sort of letter from him to take to the printers to prove he has given you permission to reproduce the images.
Click to expand...

tintin said:
Call the photographer, explain the issue and ask them to send you an non-copyrighted set? They're your pics after-all, assuming you didn't have some kind of print only contract with them...

edit - or what whitewash said ;)
Click to expand...

He can't find the photographer, so he's a bit stuck...:shake:
 
Last edited:
I thought the OP said he can't contact the photographer.


Edit :- Beat me to it :)

Did you get the disc back ?
 
Last edited:
no i cant find him anywhere at all. He messed them up by taking 120 images, letting us choose 22 for the album, when he delivered the album the images were nothing what we had chosen. He said that it was my computer that had mixed up all the numbers so the images were different to his. I asked for compo he said either pay extra to have it put right meaning photos,sleeves etc or have them developed myself and he gave me the original disk to keep so i could print them as a way of compo. There is no copyright on the images themselves but the customer service told me there was but where else would it be?
 
If he gave you the disk you own them.. upload them to photobox or snapfish and get them printed. Or a place where you can do them yourself on the machne.
 
Post up the details of the photographer on here and the local internet sleuths will have his details within an hour?
 
Copyright remains with the photographer unless given away. While he may have said it, the printers would need to see proof.

Just like your bank might need to see proof that you told me I can have all your wages every pay day for the next three months ;)
 
Talk about laugh your socks off. With all the above been sorted I have been done to a local supermarket to get some pictures done with the supplied letter from the photographer and and the women behind the counter for my photos that I was refused and they was binned. (which they shouldn't have done for 14 days). Then I asked out of interest where on the cd is the copyright because the photographer claimed there was none on the disk. With this I expected a technical reply but no (lol). The lady replied "there is no way of telling if they are copyrighted unless they have signatures on the images themselves but we have been trained to look at the eyes of the subject to tell if they are copyright as they have been done by a proffesional photographer"
I fell on the floor laughing but all sorted now.
 
collins82002 said:
we have been trained to look at the eyes of the subject to tell if they are copyright as they have been done by a proffesional photographer"
I fell on the floor laughing but all sorted now.
Click to expand...

huh??? :lol:
i need a new lol icon for this
 
Regardless of perceived extenuating circumstances, the photographer remains the owner of the images.

From the information you've provided, I'm fairly sure that he has only given you proof copies of the original shots - this is supported by your experience when you tried to have them printed.

Without permission (preferably obtained in writing), you have no legal right to reproduce, edit or distribute them.

If you believe that you have been mislead and the results don't represent the service you were led to expect you were paying for, seek legal advice regarding fair compensation.

Sadly, you could be in a difficult position if the photographer is no longer in business.
 
**** him, use DSCL and swear blind you own copyright - he has screwed you and is obviously a ****** so you might as well screw him a bit
 
david1701 said:
**** him, use DSCL and swear blind you own copyright - he has screwed you and is obviously a ****** so you might as well screw him a bit
Click to expand...

I appreciate your sentiment David but Chris, the OP, doesn't own the originals and if any legal action occurs as a result of his use of the photos, the photographer can probably prove that he does - this thread would only help support HIS case! ;)
 
Last edited:
Landscape71 said:
Sadly, you could be in a difficult position if the photographer is no longer in business.
Click to expand...

This does open an interesting and perhaps gray area because if a company goes bust copyright does still exist, however, as technically nobody owns it then it's probably ok to reproduce it as there is nobody around to sue.

In this case, does the copyright belong to the guy who took the photographs or does it belong to his business? If it were a limited company then it's far more clean cut as the company would be a seperate legal entity.

But if he's a sole trader then it could be argued that he is the business and it isn't a seperate legal entity - but then if he claims copyright then isn't he technically still trading as the photographs were produced by him acting as a business :thinking: hehe
 
Landscape71 said:
I appreciate your sentiment David but Chris, the OP, doesn't own the originals and if any legal action occurs as a result of his use of the photos, the photographer can probably prove that he does - this thread would only help support HIS case! ;)
Click to expand...

if they ****ed the album up they're not a photographer - I'm on damage control here for the poor OP. If they mention court BAM say you will take them to court for breach of conduct.

I would assume a reproduction licence from that conversation when he gave you the images

There are embarrassing **** takes in our profession who think a 350d and hope makes them a photographer so damage control is all the rest of us can do.
 
gman said:
This does open an interesting and perhaps gray area because if a company goes bust copyright does still exist, however, as technically nobody owns it then it's probably ok to reproduce it as there is nobody around to sue.

In this case, does the copyright belong to the guy who took the photographs or does it belong to his business? If it were a limited company then it's far more clean cut as the company would be a seperate legal entity.

But if he's a sole trader then it could be argued that he is the business and it isn't a seperate legal entity - but then if he claims copyright then isn't he technically still trading as the photographs were produced by him acting as a business :thinking: hehe
Click to expand...

I'm uncertain of the legal position regarding image ownership if the business has folded. I'd be inclined to assume if any debts remained, the ownership of the images would be regarded as a low value asset but they still would fall under control of the bank or liquidator responsible for asset management and disposal - that being the case you would have little option but to add your name to the creditors list and wait in line for any leftover money representing your loss - you would be at the bottom and unlikely to receive anything.

If the photographer was a sole-trader, barring any tax owed, the bank assumes control of any accounts and funds - it's unlikely the original images will still exist and retain any financial value.
 
Last edited:
Landscape71 said:
liquidator responsible for asset management and disposal
Click to expand...

You are far too polite. I would say "liquidator responsible for hoovering up every available penny recoverable and putting the fingers up to all other creditors by offering one pence in the pound to them all, whilst knowing that there's sod all anyone can do about it". :D
 
david1701 said:
if they ****ed the album up they're not a photographer - I'm on damage control here for the poor OP. If they mention court BAM say you will take them to court for breach of conduct.

I would assume a reproduction licence from that conversation when he gave you the images

There are embarrassing **** takes in our profession who think a 350d and hope makes them a photographer so damage control is all the rest of us can do.
Click to expand...

right, calm down (step away from the carlsberg...?) we do not know if the photographer messed up the wedding, all we have been told is that he messed up the album and obviously has agreed with the OP that they will organise the album themselves (it could be simply that they did not like the presentation and got it refunded etc) the OP seems happy with the images and is getting them printed himself (and has tweaked the images to his taste as we are all different etc).

so not given the entire circumstances its not really fair for you to be spouting off with more asterisks than a french cartoon book.

as is it unfair for other people in this thread to be calling for the photographers head on a spike and/or to be named and shamed, you dont know the full story so that is grossly unfair.
 
whitewash said:
as is it unfair for other people in this thread to be calling for the photographers head on a spike and/or to be named and shamed, you dont know the full story so that is grossly unfair.
Click to expand...

I think it's an idea that commends itself for all sorts of reasons...:thumbs:

124753-hell-put-your-head-on-a-pike-london-united-kingdom.jpg
 
david1701 said:
if they ****ed the album up they're not a photographer - I'm on damage control here for the poor OP. If they mention court BAM say you will take them to court for breach of conduct.

I would assume a reproduction licence from that conversation when he gave you the images

There are embarrassing **** takes in our profession who think a 350d and hope makes them a photographer so damage control is all the rest of us can do.
Click to expand...

Maybe slightly off topic however I have seen instances where someone with a 350d or alternative brand equivalent has produced images of a better quality than those taken by alleged pro's or semi pro's with cameras several times more expensive. Cost of the camera is not necessarily proportional to the ability to produce s great image!!
 
Lynton said:
Maybe slightly off topic however I have seen instances where someone with a 350d or alternative brand equivalent has produced images of a better quality than those taken by alleged pro's or semi pro's with cameras several times more expensive. Cost of the camera is not necessarily proportional to the ability to produce s great image!!
Click to expand...

but it is in general/on average. And I had to do group shots at iso 800 the other day try pulling clean images from a ****** entry level body from that. TBH if you are charging or even pretending to charge you need pro kit and if you don't have it you are in some way cheating your client.

and @ whitewash how caan you **** up an album without having ****ed up the wedding - they aint hard and for a dam reasonable fee a nice indian firm will design it for you to suit your style

nowt to do with drinking just ****ed off with people devaluing an industy I am very fond of
 
david1701 said:
but it is in general/on average. And I had to do group shots at iso 800 the other day try pulling clean images from a ****** entry level body from that. TBH if you are charging or even pretending to charge you need pro kit and if you don't have it you are in some way cheating your client.

and @ whitewash how caan you **** up an album without having ****ed up the wedding - they aint hard and for a dam reasonable fee a nice indian firm will design it for you to suit your style

nowt to do with drinking just ****ed off with people devaluing an industy I am very fond of
Click to expand...


Ho hum, here we go - expensive cameras always take a decent pic compared to an entry level body ....... again.

- Generally, you would hope so and assuming a degree of competence / knowledge by the person behind the screens pressing the buttons. But not always! It's not necessarily the size of your equipment, more what you do with it! Ask some female students on your course for confirmation of this!

- ISO 800 - never had a problem with that on my first entry level DSLR (Pentax K-m if it makes any difference.) But hey-ho!

- charging or pretending to charge? How would I pretend to charge someone? "Ey mate - I'll give you £100 now, but give it back to me when I hand over the disc, so it looks like I am being paid????????" - you sure you've not been sniffing the barmaids apron already today? :shrug::shrug::lol:

- so a mate who has sold several portrait prints and landscapes using a non pro camera - is cheating the clients? How so, is this? Surely the results and the clients satisfaction is what matters, not that "well he only took those using a 40D, how dare he charge?"


Back to the original posters points........ how can the photographer cock up the album and not cock up the wedding? Really really easily........

Scenario 1) A group shot - Photographer takes say 6 pictures, because Auntie MAbel has the attention span of a gnat.... cousin Brian, is a bit of a blinker, and the 2 yr old twins are being a pain in the backside......... Maybe 1 of the 6 has everyone doing what they are supposed to be doing (looking at the camera and not blinking) but he has selected another one

Scenario 2) Fantastic pics but the photographer has no concept of time - so on Page 1, we see the bride arrive at the church, page 2, they are cutting the cake, page 3, is the grooms speech, page 4, the first dance, page 5, getting ready.... OK maybe extreme, but I have seen them done wrongly before

Scenario 3) B&G get small pics / contact sheets as proof and told to pick, say 24 for album. They duly do so, and photographer picks different ones.




Lastly to the OP - Glad all is sorted to everyone's satisfaction. :thumbs: Sorry it was a pain in the bum for you in getting there, but seems all is resolved now. Normally though, if you have the high res CD or DVD, it's either written on the label that the CD owner has copyright or in an accompanying letter....... for reasons you encountered above. (I did have Boots refuse to print some I took of a wedding (as a guest) as they were "obviously professional" - didn't know wherther to be annoyed or chuffed!
 
Last edited:
Remember though, a pro on the whole won't give the copyright over to the client with a disc.

If copyright is given to the client, then the pro loses all control on what they the pro can then use the images for.

So the pro wants to use some images in his website? he would have to get written permission from the client that he can use them.

So the pro wants to use some images in his literature? he would have to get written permission from the client for that too.

So the pro wants to use some images in a competition? he would have to get written permission from the client for that too.

So the client wants to use the images in a billboard advert for their own business? They can. The pro can do nothing about it. The client owns the images, not the person that took them.

So the pro/client .... etc etc etc.


What pros do is give a reproduction release; copyright remains with the photographer, but the pro puts the images on a disc with a release for the client to print the images as they like for personal use only.
 
Hi All,
Thanks again for all your C&C regards getting my wedding photos printed.
The issuse with the copyright has been resovled and he has given me all rights of the images in a letter stating i can do what i wish. Just to clear up one thing the photographer messed up the album not the wedding but could have took better photos as 25% of the images taken people including B&G but hey 4 years on cant turn back to the clock...
But follow this link to some of my photos and two of the edited images of the hands showing the rings and one the bridge kissing. Thanks again and C&C welcome on my edits and the photographer..

chris

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/album.php?aid=2070189&id=1123129550
 
go somewhere else...if you have the disc...i call that 9/10 of the law
 
mrcrow said:
go somewhere else...if you have the disc...i call that 9/10 of the law
Click to expand...

You know the issue has been resolved and the OP has his pics (as per the post immediately before yours)? :thinking:
 
Lynton said:
Ho hum, here we go - expensive cameras always take a decent pic compared to an entry level body ....... again.

- Generally, you would hope so and assuming a degree of competence / knowledge by the person behind the screens pressing the buttons. But not always! It's not necessarily the size of your equipment, more what you do with it! Ask some female students on your course for confirmation of this!

- ISO 800 - never had a problem with that on my first entry level DSLR (Pentax K-m if it makes any difference.) But hey-ho!

- charging or pretending to charge? How would I pretend to charge someone? "Ey mate - I'll give you £100 now, but give it back to me when I hand over the disc, so it looks like I am being paid????????" - you sure you've not been sniffing the barmaids apron already today? :shrug::shrug::lol:

- so a mate who has sold several portrait prints and landscapes using a non pro camera - is cheating the clients? How so, is this? Surely the results and the clients satisfaction is what matters, not that "well he only took those using a 40D, how dare he charge?"


Back to the original posters points........ how can the photographer cock up the album and not cock up the wedding? Really really easily........

Scenario 1) A group shot - Photographer takes say 6 pictures, because Auntie MAbel has the attention span of a gnat.... cousin Brian, is a bit of a blinker, and the 2 yr old twins are being a pain in the backside......... Maybe 1 of the 6 has everyone doing what they are supposed to be doing (looking at the camera and not blinking) but he has selected another one

Scenario 2) Fantastic pics but the photographer has no concept of time - so on Page 1, we see the bride arrive at the church, page 2, they are cutting the cake, page 3, is the grooms speech, page 4, the first dance, page 5, getting ready.... OK maybe extreme, but I have seen them done wrongly before

Scenario 3) B&G get small pics / contact sheets as proof and told to pick, say 24 for album. They duly do so, and photographer picks different ones.
Click to expand...

Image quality and the ability to control depth of field are fairly important in providing images worth having and giving variety in a set with a crop body and non 2.8 glass this doesn't happen

I said clean not coped, clean like 100 or 200 not ok there is a difference

and pretending to charge is anything not going rate as you dam well knew

so with the exception of the photographer being some kind of shocking moron all 3 of those didn't happen
 
collins82002 said:
Hi All,
Thanks again for all your C&C regards getting my wedding photos printed.
The issuse with the copyright has been resovled and he has given me all rights of the images in a letter stating i can do what i wish. Just to clear up one thing the photographer messed up the album not the wedding but could have took better photos as 25% of the images taken people including B&G but hey 4 years on cant turn back to the clock...
But follow this link to some of my photos and two of the edited images of the hands showing the rings and one the bridge kissing. Thanks again and C&C welcome on my edits and the photographer..

chris

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/album.php?aid=2070189&id=1123129550
Click to expand...


I'm courious, was this a professional with a shop/studio, or a friend/realitive or amateur ? and did you see examples of his work before the wedding?
Were the images you selected for the album chosen from proof prints or disk?
Either way I'm glad you resolved the issue in the end.
 
david1701 said:
Image quality and the ability to control depth of field are fairly important in providing images worth having and giving variety in a set with a crop body and non 2.8 glass this doesn't happen

I said clean not coped, clean like 100 or 200 not ok there is a difference

and pretending to charge is anything not going rate as you dam well knew

so with the exception of the photographer being some kind of shocking moron all 3 of those didn't happen
Click to expand...

Are you saying not shooting with lenses that are at least 2.8 on a crop sensor will mean the wedding photography will be poor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top