sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Take a fairly common scenario these days... You do a photo shoot and part of the agreement is they get digital files to share. Can they edit the images without violating your copyright? I think they can.
In fact, I've seen "professional advice" given to models telling them what kind of edits they can do without violating the photographer'c copyright (IIR, they were minor things like crop/rotate/resize.... I can't find it now).
It's an interesting question to me because we like to think that our images cannot be edited by anyone other than ourselves... that that is "protected." And I'm quite certain no-one want's to think otherwise. But, IMO, that protection is provided by possession (no other legal copies exist) and by the exclusive right to make copies (other versions).
By giving them the right to share the images (i.e. facebook) you have given them the right to make copies, distribute copies, and to display the image. The only copyright protection you haven't assigned to them is the right to create derivative works/adaptations. (by "share" I do not mean only "display")
The definition a derivative work/adaptation is one changed significantly enough to constitute a new/unique "original work of authorship" which is then covered by it's own copyright protections. Basic edits do not constitute a derivative work/adaptation. Therefore, basic edits are "a copy" (another version) of the same image protected by the same copyright protections as the original.
I.e. you take a picture. The moment it is recorded it is "fixed in tangible form" and you own the copyright.
You then do basic edits to the image in post... crop/color/exposure/etc. Those edits are not significant enough for the result to qualify as a derivative work/adaptation. So what you have is "an edited copy" which is your sole right as copyright owner. It is copyright protected as the original.
You then significantly modify a copy so that it becomes substantially unique (i.e. compositing w/ other images)... You have now
made a derivative work/adaptation, which is also your sole right as copyright owner. But this image has it's own copyright protection separate from the other two.
You then deliver an image with the right to share it...
By having assigned all of the rights except the right to create derivative works/adaptation, you have given them the right to do basic edits as they see fit. Actually, IMO, by providing the file they can edit it without any additional rights having been transferred... it's just that no-one would know.
They cannot edit it to remove any identifying marks (logo/copyright notice) according to moral rights limitations... but other than that I don't see an obvious limit. They can edit "their copy" and they can produce "other copies" (versions) because you transferred that right to them.
This actually really sucks... Instagram crap is just fine; regardless of how offensive you find it.
In the U.K. you have a moral rights clause which includes the right 'to object to derogatory treatment of the work or film which amounts to a distortion or mutilation or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director.' In the U.S. we don't have that clause but we have the VARA 1990 which includes similar terminology (unfortunately, a large qtty of photography would not qualify for VARA protection...).
But in law "prejudicial" means "harmful" and that means you would have to show actual losses/costs.
The only way I can see to prevent it would be to have the agreement include a phrase like "as delivered/without edit." And then if they do something you don't care about (i.e. resize) you can just ignore it.
Obviously, this is just my take on it... I would be interested to hear other's views.
In fact, I've seen "professional advice" given to models telling them what kind of edits they can do without violating the photographer'c copyright (IIR, they were minor things like crop/rotate/resize.... I can't find it now).
It's an interesting question to me because we like to think that our images cannot be edited by anyone other than ourselves... that that is "protected." And I'm quite certain no-one want's to think otherwise. But, IMO, that protection is provided by possession (no other legal copies exist) and by the exclusive right to make copies (other versions).
By giving them the right to share the images (i.e. facebook) you have given them the right to make copies, distribute copies, and to display the image. The only copyright protection you haven't assigned to them is the right to create derivative works/adaptations. (by "share" I do not mean only "display")
The definition a derivative work/adaptation is one changed significantly enough to constitute a new/unique "original work of authorship" which is then covered by it's own copyright protections. Basic edits do not constitute a derivative work/adaptation. Therefore, basic edits are "a copy" (another version) of the same image protected by the same copyright protections as the original.
I.e. you take a picture. The moment it is recorded it is "fixed in tangible form" and you own the copyright.
You then do basic edits to the image in post... crop/color/exposure/etc. Those edits are not significant enough for the result to qualify as a derivative work/adaptation. So what you have is "an edited copy" which is your sole right as copyright owner. It is copyright protected as the original.
You then significantly modify a copy so that it becomes substantially unique (i.e. compositing w/ other images)... You have now
made a derivative work/adaptation, which is also your sole right as copyright owner. But this image has it's own copyright protection separate from the other two.
You then deliver an image with the right to share it...
By having assigned all of the rights except the right to create derivative works/adaptation, you have given them the right to do basic edits as they see fit. Actually, IMO, by providing the file they can edit it without any additional rights having been transferred... it's just that no-one would know.
They cannot edit it to remove any identifying marks (logo/copyright notice) according to moral rights limitations... but other than that I don't see an obvious limit. They can edit "their copy" and they can produce "other copies" (versions) because you transferred that right to them.
This actually really sucks... Instagram crap is just fine; regardless of how offensive you find it.
In the U.K. you have a moral rights clause which includes the right 'to object to derogatory treatment of the work or film which amounts to a distortion or mutilation or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director.' In the U.S. we don't have that clause but we have the VARA 1990 which includes similar terminology (unfortunately, a large qtty of photography would not qualify for VARA protection...).
But in law "prejudicial" means "harmful" and that means you would have to show actual losses/costs.
The only way I can see to prevent it would be to have the agreement include a phrase like "as delivered/without edit." And then if they do something you don't care about (i.e. resize) you can just ignore it.
Obviously, this is just my take on it... I would be interested to hear other's views.
