Scanning is Theft

mike weeks said:
As to Dod's terms and conditions am I the only one that thinks it is naive to give product away? Like all good ladies of the night I give nothing away - if it is worth having, it is worth paying for - if I adopted this policy I would lose many of the repeat sales.
Click to expand...

To be honest Mike I haven't had one repeat sale in the last 5 years.

I also think that photographers need to change with the times. The reprints model is applying an old model to a new market place. Digital scans etc are a fact of life and in events the value is so low that we're not going to be taking legal action. That means we can bitch about it or try to find a model which the new generation of customers wants.

Sales from our last event are higher than I was expecting, some of that is through the facebook images. Interestingly some people are buying prints plus image files and I've a good few emails stating what a good idea it is. Not only that, some of them are actually putting it on their facebook that they can get small files cheaply. That's the first time that I've ever had that sort of advertising.

I don't see it as naive at all, I see it as building a solid customer base that buys from me because I'm offering them a product that they want, at a price they want and not bullying them into something they don't want. That approach has really worked up till now as evidenced by the number of watermarked facebook images which haven't been paid for.

And finally, your CD analogy is partially flawed. You don't have to buy two CD's to be able to listen to them on two different players. That's the argument our customers are putting forward and to be honest I agree with them. I'd agree though that if it's one for mum and one for granny ideally they would buy one each. As you know though, they don't. I'm acknowledging that and trying to develop the offerings I have to suit. I'm going to be making some more changes very shortly to trial them. I won't bother explaining them though, you wouldn't like them ;)
 
If the RIAA and MPAA can't stop people breaking copyright laws when they spend millions a year on advertising how much difference is a facebook campaign with 100 members and a snazzy logo going to make?

I think people need to evolve their way of doing business, or face going out of business.
 
Mickwreay said:
No need to pretend at anything mate.

By the pathetic comment “your lot” it really shows what kind of person you are.

YOU don’t have the right to comment on “our lot”

It’s because of “our lot” that little people like you can hide on forums & talk poop.

"Ignore button pressed"
Click to expand...

K, just don't turn up at events with a recently bought digicam and, within earshot of the photographer, declare that you could do it better for less and still think you could make a living.

Props to you for your service to our country, I do respect your opinion, it's thanks to you and your predecessors that I still have the right to correct your misinformation in plain English.

Peace
 
dod said:
The problem is you've got the analogy the wrong way round. What's really happening is that the boss is coming to us and saying "You know that job you've done for years. We don't care for it too much any more, we'd like you to change and take a pay cut. You don't have to but you're old job isn't there now, the customers don't like the product"
Click to expand...

One way of looking at it, I suppose.

The other way of looking at it is I don't have a boss. I am in business and my buyers do have the money to buy my product and my product does sell.
 
menthel said:
This really did turn into a car crash popcorn thread! I think all those who say that the world is changing are right though. You may have copyright but how the hell do you go around policing it with average joe public? With buisnesses and publications you can but the little man? Not a hope in hell.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll disregard the monthly £50 to £700 I usually claim from publishers (usually self facilitating media nodes AKA copyright abusers) who lift photographs off websites, and re publish images on their own websites to attract readers (hits) and who then to use that traffic data (hits) to attract advertising revenue.

"how the hell do you go around policing it"

First, learn to make and market an image which buyers want.

Then, watch it get ripped off.

Then get even.
 
Lynton said:
that's all well and good then.......... at the expense of rapidly falling out with a fine gentleman :naughty: whom I have not yet had the pleasure to meet, I suggest you look up the definition of "pro bono"
Click to expand...

Lynton, You don't have the class to fall in, let alone fall out - look up gift aid.

On Monday I'll print out a cheque for £600, payable to a deserving charity, in exchange for half a day's 'work'

Go figure ;)
 
mike weeks said:
OK go to a car dealer and buy 2 cars the same and say I want the second at half price because I already have one - rediculous yes but lets get closer to photography and talk about CDs - got to a music shop and buy 2 copies of the same CD and say you want the second at half price because you already have one (after all they are just reprints from the master) - what would happen is that everybody would partner up.

If granny wants the same photo as mum it is an individual product and therefore the same price. Most event photographers attend for free and the only way to achieve what you are talking about is to charge an attendance fee and then lower the cost per print and for 99% of events that is proven not to work because it would raise ticket/entry prices.

Mike
Click to expand...

If you bought 2 cars you may well get a bigger discount. Boots have been doing 3for2 for ages. People expect this sort of deal and this can be a great way to increase order values
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Ok, I'll disregard the monthly £50 to £700 I usually claim from publishers (usually self facilitating media nodes AKA copyright abusers) who lift photographs off websites, and re publish images on their own websites to attract readers (hits) and who then to use that traffic data (hits) to attract advertising revenue.

"how the hell do you go around policing it"

First, learn to make and market an image which buyers want.

Then, watch it get ripped off.

Then get even.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between that scenario or a newspaper using one, compared to a mum scanning one of mine.
 
My facebook pics are 420pix on the longest side and are less than 50kb in size.

£2 with small watermark in the corner (never sold one yet)
£3 no watermark, 100% sales are this choice.
 
Selling a 2nd (or more) product(s) at a discount is a tried and tested method of selling more than you otherwise would. As long as you're not selling the second at a loss it can really only be a good thing, particularly in the instances where the images are valueless to anyone other than the person in the photo (things like studio sessions, people at events etc.). Think about how often you buy the offers supermarket shopping. I'm assuming you're like most people and think 'oooh, buy one get one half price, that's affordable' and buy something you may otherwise walk away from. I know I often pick up 2 of something that I didn't intend to buy one of because the reduction makes the item seem affordable or good value.
 
Laudrup said:
how much difference is a facebook campaign with 100 members and a snazzy logo going to make?
Click to expand...

It made Rage Against the Machine the Christmas number 1 ;)
 
I fall into that trick... It seems such a waste to buy one for £3 and not get a further one for £1. Although the other week tesco were selling something at £2.04 or 2 for £2????
 
neil_g said:
i dont give a choice, theyre all logo'd. quite a good earner :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I guess it encourages the upsell. If people are looking at 6x4's at £5, I tell them 7x5's are on offer from £9 to £7 and they upgrade every time.
 
cambsno said:
I fall into that trick... It seems such a waste to buy one for £3 and not get a further one for £1. Although the other week tesco were selling something at £2.04 or 2 for £2????
Click to expand...

Sainsbury's would sell sliced ham/turkey/chicken (can't remember which) a pack of 12 slices for something like £1 and then have an offer for a 24 pack only £2.50! :cuckoo:
 
Kaouthia said:
The legal definition of "Theft" hasn't been updated since 1996, before Intellectual Property really became such a huge area (outside of music and movies, which everybody knows is illegal, but they do it anyway).

So, perhaps it's simply time for an update to the law & legal definition?
Click to expand...

Because the wording of the Theft Act 1968 is carefully structured.

Such a radical change in the definition of theft would have many undesirable consequences.

Essentially, in principle, you're advocating the re-definition of causing any losses to another party into criminal acts of theft. i.e. if you do something that causes me loss of income. Or, more broadly, by implication from your hypothesis, loss of potential income, then you are committing theft.

Traditionally, these areas are dealt with by tort and other areas of civil law; restitution is delivered in the form of damages.

So, suppose someone were to park their car across the entrance to your garage - you are thus temporarily deprived of the use your car and cannot make it to an event where you are to make money taking photographs. You have suffered a financial loss, or at best a loss of potential income. Under the proposed update to the law, they have committed theft.

You can extend this to myriad other examples in daily life where you may find yourself out of pocket, be temporarily deprived of the use of something, or missing out on income that you may have otherwise expected to receive. A shop fails to deliver a television at the promised hour when you have take time off work to wait in for them. A train is late, causing you to miss a valuable opportunity?

The logical implication of your suggestion is that these should be classed as theft.

While you may suffer a loss, financial or otherwise, they are not acts of theft in law for good reason.
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
What I don't do is have time for people who don't do what I do telling me that I ought to do it for less.

Is there anything else you think you know about my pricing structure ?
Click to expand...

Tyrone, thanks for the PM telling me how much money you made, you are obviously do well, and i am glad for you, so why do you seem to attack so much on this thread? What I and others are saying is there is a gigantic shift in the industry happening, and this is hard to ignore.

I am not telling you how to run your business, but you have to accept that piracy on a rescanning of your images etc. will be happening. It is impossible to police even on an event photographer level. People need to try and work with the whole social media world, not against it, as it is too big. 500 million on facebook as of this week!

My question of price has had a few analogies, but what I am getting at is tis:

The initial print you sell, people are paying for your time, expertise etc. What are they paying for with the second? The price of the print, mount etc. as they already paid for the rest with the initial purchase.

Events I go to (more rarely now admittedly) If I could buy a second print for a reasonable price, I would probably buy 2 more, one for my parents and one for my wife's, but I will not pay the same price, as a) it is cost prohibitive and b) it is not of sufficient value.

A more apt analogy would be an electrician. When fitting one light in your house, he will charge you for the travel, the expertise etc. but if he fits 2 lights, the price is significantly cheaper overall than paying for them individually, as with the fitting of the first light, you have paid for his travel expenses etc. He will do exactly the same job with the second light, but it will cost only a little more than fitting one, as he is there, and it is not a great pain to him to do another one. Hope that makes sense.

Adding an extra pound to email a Facebook size image is money for nothing, and I would imagine a lot of people would take this up if offered. Group shots would be better if a group shot of five and ten had a set price, ensuring everyone gets a print. Maybe if on a group of 5 you charged the price for four prints you would get more group shots. Maybe some of you do, I am not an event photographer. But marketing things like this and reducing second print charges would be a money maker. Buy one, get second half price for couples would make you another 50% profit, might not be as much monetarily, but percentage profits are great, but they are not pound shillings and pence!
 
TriggerHappy said:
Sainsbury's would sell sliced ham/turkey/chicken (can't remember which) a pack of 12 slices for something like £1 and then have an offer for a 24 pack only £2.50! :cuckoo:
Click to expand...


:lol:
 
Musicman said:
Because the wording of the Theft Act 1968 is carefully structured.
Click to expand...

And 42 years behind real life.

I'm simply advocating a rethink of the law by people who understand it much better than I do to allow for changes that have happened since the term was defined.

Other countries do classify a breach of copyright as theft. They don't seem to be prosecuting people for the other ludicrous examples you imply. :)

If it's made specifically for breach of copyright, rather than loss of earnings, I would imagine it gets much simpler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act
 
Last edited:
Kaouthia said:
Other countries do classify a breach of copyright as theft. They don't seem to be prosecuting people for the other ludicrous examples you imply. :)

If it's made specifically for breach of copyright, rather than loss of earnings, I would imagine it gets much simpler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act
Click to expand...

The word 'Theft' only appears in the title of the US act - which creates an offence of 'criminal copyright infringement', not 'criminal copyright theft'.

US Law is often rather more fancifully named than UK Parliamentary drafting conventions would allow - a year after the NET Act, they passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

The US Supreme Court has considered whether works infringing copyright could be considered stolen property in 1985 and ruled against it.

The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
Click to expand...
 
A more apt analogy would be an electrician. When fitting one light in your house, he will charge you for the travel, the expertise etc. but if he fits 2 lights, the price is significantly cheaper overall than paying for them individually, as with the fitting of the first light, you have paid for his travel expenses etc. He will do exactly the same job with the second light, but it will cost only a little more than fitting one, as he is there, and it is not a great pain to him to do another one. Hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Could not have summed this up better. You ask any tradesman this where you pay for time and expertise, and they will work in this way.
 
I did Mike, then gave a more apt analogy, and then nothing.

How do you charge the same for a reprint as the original?

Simple really. Profit can be maximised, but the whole thing is you cannot stop copyright theft, so those who spend time working on how to stop it rather than working on a marketing strategy are wasting their time are they not? BTW I am talking about event togs, not publication usage.
 
ding76uk said:
Simple really. Profit can be maximised, but the whole thing is you cannot stop copyright theft, so those who spend time working on how to stop it rather than working on a marketing strategy are wasting their time are they not? BTW I am talking about event togs, not publication usage.
Click to expand...

There is no real answer to this as each event can produce different results. Sports events differ from black tie events and they differ from (say) charity events.

Comparing an electrician to events is like comparing chalk to cheese, both are different. An electrician will charge a fee for attending based on hours on site plus materials used. An event photographer may have to pay to attend plus staff/travel exes.

All this really is deviating away from the fact that to copy an image not taken by yourself is illegal be it a first, second third etc print.
 
Those that bury their head in the sand and say just ignore it are naive in business in my opinion - working on product alone is not the answer - we have to explore every avenue and if educating the public is part of that then so be it.

I actually charge more post event for reprints and they sell - there is no one simple answer so I will not stop any available approach if it makes me money.

Mike
 
ding76uk said:
I did Mike, then gave a more apt analogy, and then nothing.

How do you charge the same for a reprint as the original?

Simple really. Profit can be maximised, but the whole thing is you cannot stop copyright theft, so those who spend time working on how to stop it rather than working on a marketing strategy are wasting their time are they not? BTW I am talking about event togs, not publication usage.
Click to expand...

Well some people obviously do! If it works for them, who are we to say differently?

And some people seem to be doing okay, some are changing their business models quite radically, some are going out of business, and some are still wrestling with a new market situation that asks some difficult questions with no easy answers.

And some are just in denial. I can understand that too.

I wouldn't want to tell anybody what to do, but there's been a good airing of opinions which can only be helpful for folks to find the right way for them.
 
The opinions and overall well natured discussion have made this a really interesting thread. The problem I see with education is that in school children are educated to use internet images in their work from primary and this continues into secondary, I know as I teach ICT.

You will not be able to overcome that level of teaching, the worth and copying of an online image is not seen as illegal by too many and current and future generations are taught that from when they can first use a computer.
 
ding76uk said:
The problem I see with education is that in school children are educated to use internet images in their work from primary and this continues into secondary, I know as I teach ICT.
<snip>
Click to expand...

Are you therefore guilty of propagating image theft ....?
 
Last edited:
mike weeks said:
Those that bury their head in the sand and say just ignore it are naive in business in my opinion - working on product alone is not the answer - we have to explore every avenue and if educating the public is part of that then so be it.
Click to expand...

That'll be me then. Just as well my other business is nice and profitable and supports 10 permanent staff :(

The generation coming through is growing up on digital media. They want to share immeditaely, be it on the ipod, the iPad, their phone, the laptop and whatever the new products coming through are over the next 10 years.

The print will die out in the longer term, simple as that. The ability to share huge collections of personal images is going to be electronic and instant. That's what we need to acknowledge and embrace, not cling on to an old model which is going to die a natural death anyway.

We can either work with our customers or marginalise them, I know what side of the fence I want to be on.
 
mike weeks said:
If taught properly then the answer is NO because there is a fair use rule applied in this country that includes crediting where the image comes from and that is most likely the part that is missing.
Click to expand...

FYI, the correct term in the UK is Fair Dealing and is covered by Section 32 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

s32 said:
32 Things done for purposes of instruction or examination

(1) Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is not infringed by its being copied in the course of instruction or of preparation for instruction, provided the copying&#8212;
(a) is done by a person giving or receiving instruction, and
(b) is not by means of a reprographic process.​
Click to expand...

[emphasis added]

This is the statutory exemption for Education under Fair Dealing. It is intended to permit handwritten copying of, for example, literary works, or sketches of paintings, etc., not printing of images from the www by your pupils.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-exception/c-exception-teaching.htm

Fair Use applies in the United States and some other jurisdictions and is both statutory in its nature and rather broader in its scope than Fair Dealing under UK law.

It may be, however, that your school has a schools licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency, which provides you with comprehensive coverage rights. Beginning 1st October 2010 it includes the copying of digital media from web sites, etc. for printed copies or use on electronic whiteboards, etc. for licences issued from April 2010.

edit: * To the best of my knowledge, the broader CDPA 1988 s29 exemption for private study would not apply if the students are doing it as part of their educational course.
 
Last edited:
SK617 said:
Actually, I'm with the noir dude here.
I kow exactly where he is coming from as demonstrated at a prom 2 weeks ago.

Her: hi can I get get a photo with all 10 of us in it?
Me: sure no problem, just to let you know, at least 50% of you have to buy the image.
her: why? we only want one copy, i'll scan it for the rest of them.
Me: (politely) I'm sorry, in that case I wont take the photo.
Her: why not, you're still selling one copy
me: (still politely) yes, but I'm losing out on another 9, and you are effectivley stealing the image
Her: well can we use the backdrop then?

at this point i called over the member of staff who was looking after our area, and let them explain.
The problem is that people think it is fine to just scan a photo, and save their mates some money.
I know that my images will be scanned and put on FB, thats why I insist on groups paying, or no photo!
Click to expand...
 
Kaouthia said:
And 42 years behind real life.

I'm simply advocating a rethink of the law by people who understand it much better than I do to allow for changes that have happened since the term was defined.
Click to expand...

The Theft Act 1968 is actually one of the better pieces of legislation out there, but it wasn't made to cover these sort of scenarios as others have said. It covers Theft, Burglary, Robbery - those sort of standard criminal offences concerning tangible property and losses. By no means is it the only legislation covering the deprivation of property, money, etc. In any case, much of the Theft Act 1968 was replaced by the Fraud Act 2006 (offences by deception and suchlike), so things have actually changed. The core legislation functions perfectly well.

You may equally be surprised to hear that most legislation concerning assaults comes from the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, or that laws concerning vagrancy remain largely unchanged from the Vagrancy Act 1824. Things frequently get added or superseded by other acts, but much of the original usually remains behind.

What has been discussed here is largely a question of Civil Law, an area where I am hopelessly ill-equipped to advise.
 
dod said:
The generation coming through is growing up on digital media. They want to share immeditaely, be it on the ipod, the iPad, their phone, the laptop and whatever the new products coming through are over the next 10 years.

The print will die out in the longer term, simple as that. The ability to share huge collections of personal images is going to be electronic and instant. That's what we need to acknowledge and embrace, not cling on to an old model which is going to die a natural death anyway.
Click to expand...

Unless the laws (many from pre digital times) are changed (and they're unlikely to) things will carry on and satisfy the need of the generation, cheap, instant or free
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top