It isn't, it's breaching the photographers copyright and they were fully entitled to resolve the matter with the magazine directly. The fact it was scanned in the middle of the story makes no difference.
Scanning is Theft
- Thread starter The Noir Dude
- Start date
It isn't, it's breaching the photographers copyright and they were fully entitled to resolve the matter with the magazine directly. The fact it was scanned in the middle of the story makes no difference.
OP
The Noir Dude
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 340
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
But if it wasn't scanned in the first place the magazine wouldn't have used it!!:bang:
The whole point is that what might seem an innocent scanning act can lead to.....oh why bother!
Those that want to help please do. Those that don't, just let this thread go.
The whole point is that what might seem an innocent scanning act can lead to.....oh why bother!
Those that want to help please do. Those that don't, just let this thread go.
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
But it his time to waste, if he so chooses.
Well yes, but the whole point of this thread is to get everyone's support for the campaign. That's wasting my time, on something which I believe is futile and I don't support. Not as a general principle anyway.
What I think would actually be more productive would be for the law to reflect what is actually happening and the vast majority of the general public are quite comfortable with. That would force photographers with unsustainable business practises to look at the real issues facing them.
What if he'd sold something like this:
They'd have been allowed to display it, the magazine still wouldn't be legally allowed to use it but probably would have done anyway. The scanning makes no difference to that story at all - it's his image that they used without permission, he should pursue a fee for it.
a1ex2001
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,780
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Brilliant you've started a copy right rant thread without even understanding the law, what you describe above is illegal under UK copyright law.
OP
The Noir Dude
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 340
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
In the words of Captain Mainwaring "I wondered when you would spot that!" ALL THE MUSIC I listen to is through iTunes
I meant to say in the past, before someone educated me!!In a recent survey only 15% of people realised that putting their music onto an MP3 player was illegal.
Last edited:
a1ex2001
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,780
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In the words of Captain Mainwaring "I wondered when you would spot that!" ALL THE MUSIC I listen to is through iTunes
In a recent survey only 15% of people realised that putting their music onto an MP3 player was illegal.
So when someone educated you, you deleted all the CD's you had ripped and then went out and purchased new digital copies as that is the only way you could be complying with current copyright legislation?
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Do you see the irony of that comment? Now you're trying to police the internet because you don't like some of the posts on this thread. Just like you're trying to control people's scanning behaviour.
OP
The Noir Dude
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 340
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
Sort of...
We were burgled years ago and my computer along with most of the electronic stuff in the house was stolen. The ipod I gave to my daughter. She wouldn't have wanted my old fuddy duddy stuff on there anyway.
In truth, would I have deleted them? Probably not! Which does sound hypocritical I know, but I now know what is right and wrong. I'm more of an audibooks man than music now. Showing my age!!
We were burgled years ago and my computer along with most of the electronic stuff in the house was stolen. The ipod I gave to my daughter. She wouldn't have wanted my old fuddy duddy stuff on there anyway.
In truth, would I have deleted them? Probably not! Which does sound hypocritical I know, but I now know what is right and wrong. I'm more of an audibooks man than music now. Showing my age!!
OP
The Noir Dude
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 340
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
Not at all, I just felt it was going round in circles and not getting anywhere. It seems to have rattled a few people and that wasn't my aim. I hoped it was something that photographers would embrace. Many have, obviously not everyone.
I thought it was I was doing the decent thing. I was trying to let the debate simmer down.
I am very sorry if you or anyone else has been offended. I'll step away now.
a1ex2001
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,780
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't have a problem with the message your trying to get accross and I'm certainly not offended by it, what I cannot agree with is your approach. The film and music industry have tried the agressive your a criminal approach it does not work and alienates your exisitng legit market. If you labell vast numbers of people as criminals they are simply not going to listen, you dramatic logo and tag line is just horendous marketing and marketing is essentially what you are trying to do.
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
No, no not at all. I'm certainly not offended and there's absolutely no need to step away! If you have something to add, do so
The only point I have to make is that the digital world has changed everything and the only way forward is to fit yourself to the new commercial reality. With respect, I see your initiative as being ultimately unhelpful because it won't solve the problem and distracts from the real issue.
I understand and sympathise with the alternative point of view, even if I don't empathise with it. The debate is good
In my case, all of the events I cover are at the invitation of the organisers. All who attend know, in advance, that there will be one or more photographers acting in an official capacity at the event. Should a competitor not wish to be photographed they have the right to ask that we not photograph them before they begin. There is no more exploitation here than there is on the part of the organisers who lay on a Show Jumping event, knowing that some equestrian people like show jumping - we are all there trying to make a living.
There is a fatal flaw in the common understanding of what someone can do with an image once they've bought it when, in fact, it is really simple: they can look at the physical copy they bought and they can show that physical copy to anyone they choose. They may not reproduce the image in any way, shape or form without prior permission from the copyright holder.
As a professional photographer, I whole-heartedly back what the Noir Dude is attempting to do. Image theft, both from scanning and stealing from online galleries is very bad for our industry.
OP
The Noir Dude
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 340
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
Marketing who or what? It's a message
Myself and my teams deal with on average 2000 - 4000 and guests at events over a weekend over a year. I like to think I know the mindset of the people I deal with. And having these signs on websites. on signs and on literature will make people aware. As I have said on a couple of occasions, it won't eradicate it I'm not that stupid!! But I would like to think that pointing it out to the people will help a little.
The logo was designed to stand out, to be provocative, so people will take notice. A sign saying "please don't put this on Facebook" won't work. IMHO
mike weeks
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,881
- Name
- mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Richard,
The Noir Dude likes your magazine and decides to show all his friends, so he scans it and posts it on the internet - why should the people pay? they can read the free scan scanned copy - in fact he does it the following month as well and his friends tell their friends and so we now have a site called freebook where everybody can post all the scanned magazines which means people stop buying them in the shops - only 1 or 2 steps removed from what we are talking about here, so this is a genuine question - what are you doing in your industry to 'fit with the new commercial reality' - maybe we can learn from you.
Mike
The Noir Dude likes your magazine and decides to show all his friends, so he scans it and posts it on the internet - why should the people pay? they can read the free scan scanned copy - in fact he does it the following month as well and his friends tell their friends and so we now have a site called freebook where everybody can post all the scanned magazines which means people stop buying them in the shops - only 1 or 2 steps removed from what we are talking about here, so this is a genuine question - what are you doing in your industry to 'fit with the new commercial reality' - maybe we can learn from you.
Mike
a1ex2001
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,780
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You just answered your own question, you are marketing a message and how you present that message will very much determine it's chances of success.
The Music and Film industries have already demonstrated the futility of aggressive messages that label consumers as criminals, they finally appear to be moving away from this stance and you want photgraphy to run in and fill the void? I appreciate what your trying to do I just cannot understand why you have chosen this approach or used the word 'Theft' which will just start endless debates about the legal meaning as you will see in any debate on copyright infringment.
Intresting and i see the OP's point, its not a matter of whether its theft in the laws eyes or if his tag line is appropriate. Its simply about the copying of an image a photographer has created without his permission.
Unfortunately I feel the OP is trying to ice skate up a hill (guess the movie). Its is an impossible thing to police and its something photographers will have to live with. uploading a scanned picture to face book or for an aunt is somehtign they shouldnt think about, may be hard but its somethign the music and movie bussiness has had to live with for over a decade, they are bringing prices down not puttign them up to combat it.
Unfortunately I feel the OP is trying to ice skate up a hill (guess the movie). Its is an impossible thing to police and its something photographers will have to live with. uploading a scanned picture to face book or for an aunt is somehtign they shouldnt think about, may be hard but its somethign the music and movie bussiness has had to live with for over a decade, they are bringing prices down not puttign them up to combat it.
May I ask how this is done? Do you bug the clients before hand?
Nope. My print team have been briefed that if the potential customer in front of them discusses with their associates the option of scanning the photograph, then we will not sell the image to them.
Simon
Your analogy works perfectly!
Literally the only reason for the existence of Facebook is to share scanned copies of professional photographs!
And you're right, magazines are entirely free of threat from the internet! Nothing is changing in those markets at all!
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
The magzine and newspaper industry is a good parallel. It is my ex-industry now, as I was made redundant along with over 100 other people (about 30% of the workforce) as a direct result of the internet effectively doing exactly what you say. It has not been done in precisely the manner you outlined, but the result is the same.
Magazine sales have been savaged, particularly in the fairly specialised areas I used to work in, ie photo mags, motoring, motorcycling, amongst others (Emap plc as was, now Bauer Media). You can get that information and entertainment largely for free from websites just like this. You don't get a magazine of course, but with a mag what you are mostly paying for is a physical pile of paper and ink delivered to a physical shop or house. Internet sites operate to a completely different publishing model where all those print, production and delivery costs are pretty much reduced to zero.
What the magazine industry has had to do is dramatically rescale everything to the new order, where in very round numbers overall revenues have been cut in half. Simple as. And they're still falling. The transfer of magazines to internet sites simply doesn't work because in their current form websites cannot generate anything like enough revenue (advertising only) to sustain an editorial team.
I happen to believe that while old style printed magazines and newspapers might have had their day, the internet is also unsustaiable in its presently free-for-all form. The problem with 'free' is that anybody can do it, and seemingly everybody does. The result is a colossal mass of free information, but most of it is rubbish and finding those golden nuggets of valuable information is like finding a needle in a haystack.
Murdock is making the first serious push towards paid-for web content with The Times Online. It's pioneering work and he'll find it very tough but I ultimately believe that quality paid-for content on the web will win through. What I think it needs is a bit more technology in the form of things like the new iPad, coupled to new methods of micro-payment.
For example, you could access any media on your mobile iPad-style device and when you click on a page worth reading a micro-payment of 0.5p or something is instantly made and taken off your internet media subscription - just like sending a txt message really. Easy, instant, simple, painless, and compared to the cost of printed media, and absolute bargain. And this service would be availabe to billions of people internationally 24/7, not just in a few thousand newsagent shops up and down the UK. So those half pees would add up!
I think people would happily pay that for trusted and quality content from known premium brands and media suppliers, and at the end of the month you'd settle a bill for a tenner or something for all your media needs. That is workable from a business point of view, and would sit very well beside all the free stuff. It just needs a couple more steps in the evolutionary techno chain to make that possible and then the magazine world will be a great and flourishing industry once more.
Commercial photography needs to look at itself from the ground up in much the same way, and review what their business fundamentally is. And I would suggest it is first and foremost about the creation of images - the actual taking of pictures. That's the unique and valuable service you can charge for, and trying to stop people copying and scanning and downloading stuff is not only futile, but actually misses the point.
a1ex2001
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,780
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So rather than loosing some sales that you never had you loose the sale that was in the bag, thus swapping real money for no money? Followed by everyone who was at the event moaning about the arsey photographers and a different company getting the contract next year........hmmm.
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Your analogy works perfectly!
Literally the only reason for the existence of Facebook is to share scanned copies of professional photographs!
And you're right, magazines are entirely free of threat from the internet! Nothing is changing in those markets at all!
The print media market is on its knees Andrew. Please see my post above.
You comment is a good one in relation to my 'needle in a haystack' comparison
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
mike weeks
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,881
- Name
- mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Alex,
you obviously have never done this to make money - it is pretty much a standard practice and pays in the long run - strange how often the other 6 or 7 in the picture to tell the clever dick to shut up as they want the images.
Mike
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Haha! I'm so sorry Andrew
My sarcasm detector is indeed broke. Apologies 
Is it such a leap of imagination that the subject should have no rights over their image, whereas photographers appear to have a divine monopoly on it? Ask any personality or popular media subject what they think to the rights and wrongs of that!
I don't think the subject should have automatic rights either, but I don't believe photographers necessarily have any rights to it either.
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
I am guessing that Joe Public doesn't know that the copyright of the image belongs to the photographer, and probably thinks, "an image of me, I can do what I want with it." :shrug:
Amazing as well as to how some professional companies will ignore copyright to make a quid or two.
Mate of mine is a huge blackadder fan and was 40 last week.
A quick google of "blackadder" in images, refining by pic size and a bit of photoshopping to add the text, and sent the file off to a large card printing company whose name may or may not contain the large satellite that orbits Earth and a porcine animal........
I was fully expecting the "sorry we cannot print this" email........
Amazing as well as to how some professional companies will ignore copyright to make a quid or two.
Mate of mine is a huge blackadder fan and was 40 last week.
A quick google of "blackadder" in images, refining by pic size and a bit of photoshopping to add the text, and sent the file off to a large card printing company whose name may or may not contain the large satellite that orbits Earth and a porcine animal........
I was fully expecting the "sorry we cannot print this" email........
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
well we all know the rules are in the favour of the photographer on that front.. copyright law states the creator of the image has control not the subject.
but as an event photographer are you saying that even though we are invited onto the venue to photograph competitors for their own benefit we should obtain written permission (although not lawfully required) by every single competitor before taking a single shot of them?
imagine all of the photography that would never have taken place if it were the case that a written "okay" was needed before the images could be used in any way.
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
true, although i would think the film/music industry still makes multiple millions of pounds a year. whereas your average photographer...
(not that im condoning illegal sourcing of film or music)
Last edited:
I think it is fair to say that the photography industry is still making multiple million pounds each year. Whereas your average musician?
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
fair enough, but your average event photographer though im sure earns less than the likes of robbie etc
Skyline On Fire
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,391
- Name
- Luke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Your average professional photographer probably makes more than your average bar singer.
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
No, I'm not saying that at all. But some people would, and they have a point. I am just explaining my earlier comment that you queried about who has rights and who doesn't.
This thing about copyright is that it is primarily a legal right, and not necessarily a strong moral one. At least not a clear cut one, and it is unenforeable anyway, hence the abuse.
Blade, but can't remember which one
HA!!! Yeah give that man a cigar, its the first one just before the end, I'm notthe only film geek...... whod have thought we would both like photography too.
fair enough, but your average event photographer though im sure earns less than the likes of robbie etc
I'm going to guess you don't know much about the music industry, so we'll cut this debate short.