Should we be surprised people don't "get' copyright?

J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
I keep seeing threads where people are fuming that some clinet scanned in a photo, or took the web version from a site etc and people seem to be annoyed that the client doesn't 'get' copyright.

But in the world we live in now is it surprising they don't?

Take some normal life examples for instance. With the ondemand service on the net for almost all major channels we can watch a tv show anytime we want as many times as we want.

Radio stations on the internet like Last.fm allow you to listen to music for free whenever you want.

You can record programs on PVRs and watch them as many times as you like or keep them forever.

All of the above require just one TV license for the year and you can have infinite use of all these services, is it a surprise that if a client pays in some form for their photograph then they assume they can use it in as many different ways as they want?
 
Last edited:
Yes, the internet is free, everything on it is free... the ISP's have been telling everyone this for years and now people believe it.

The anarchist elements supporting the internet have won, it just remains to be seen what is left in the wreckage after the smoke clears.
 
desantnik said:
Yes, the internet is free, everything on it is free... the ISP's have been telling everyone this for years and now people believe it.

The anarchist elements supporting the internet have won, it just remains to be seen what is left in the wreckage after the smoke clears.
Click to expand...

Your point, although masked in sarcasm :D I think is that you are paying for the internet so therefore these things aren't free.

I disagree.

for a start the PVR recoring has nothing to do with the internet.

And secondly, the internet has been the same price ... or actually higher long before these services appeared. The internet cost get's you online but once you are there, loads of things are an extra cost, like downloading movies etc (legally of course) ... but lots of stuff is just included in your TV license.

My point is in so many cases once you pay once you have unlimited use so people are used to it and expect the same from their photographs too.
 
I disargree, every movie you watch has "this is protected by copyright" in big letters at the beginning, people know copying games and music is wrong, they know that a preview pic stamped copyright is not supposed to be copied, but they go ahead and do it anyway.
They for the most part fully understand what they are doing is wrong, they also know that the chances of getting caught and actually punished is very very small.
 
Yes, but if its "there" people can do what they like with them...

PVR is the old taping music/videoing TV that happened donkeys years ago, none of that effected photography.

The internet and computer use/storage effects photography.
 
desantnik said:
Yes, but if its "there" people can do what they like with them...

PVR is the old taping music/videoing TV that happened donkeys years ago, none of that effected photography.

The internet and computer use/storage effects photography.
Click to expand...

this is a very different point and argument to what i'm talking about.

Since the invention of Web 2.0 people just EXPECT sharing of content. The world is full of free content and sharing of it.

I can go on youtube and watch every song from the top 10 for free, as many times as I like. I can listen to Last.fm all day and have custom playlists for free.

I just think people live in a world where most things are provided to them to what they perceive as being free - whether it is or not is debatable, you still have to purchase the tv license, the internet, the devices to view them on etc. But the mass of content and what they are allowed to do with it for the price they pay leads them to expect everything i there for their use.
 
I think we are on the same page there actually, just our words aren't exactly the same :)
 
swanseamale47 said:
I disargree, every movie you watch has "this is protected by copyright" in big letters at the beginning, people know copying games and music is wrong, they know that a preview pic stamped copyright is not supposed to be copied, but they go ahead and do it anyway.
They for the most part fully understand what they are doing is wrong, they also know that the chances of getting caught and actually punished is very very small.
Click to expand...

It also says this:

The copyright proprietor has licensed the programme (including without limitation, it's soundtrack) contained in this video files (download) or Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) for private home use only. Unless otherwise expressly licensed by the copyright proprietor, all other rights are reserved. Use in other locations such as airlines, clubs, coaches, hospitals, hotels, oil rigs, prisons, schools and ships is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the copyright proprietor in WRITING. Any unauthorized copying, editing, exhibition, renting, hiring, exchanging, lending, public performances, Internet publishing, diffusion and / or broadcast, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Any such action establishes liability for a civil action and may give rise to criminal prosecution.

yet people still lend it to other people and how many school in the next month will be showing shrek the forth in their classrooms etc.

Nobody thinks this is breach of copyright
 
I think part of it is not having any form of decency when it comes to the internet.
I took some photos at a cousin's wedding recently, for fun.
I put them on my personal server, which automatically converts the images into small-scale jpgs, and allows you to view large scales and download the CR2 original as well.
I gave the cousin access to this, so they could see the images, and said that they may take a couple of the originals to use for print etc. if they wanted (this is a couple of months after the wedding, so I don't think it will reduce any income the original 'tog might have had, and you get to capture things from a different angle). Last night I find that they used the remote mount option, and basically dragged/dropped the whole 16G to their local machine.
Because it is there, it is quick, and you can (and I didn't have to put a credit card number in, so it must be 'free' right)
 
Last edited:
You just need to make the assumption that your stuff will be stolen and reproduced if it makes it onto the internet.

No amount of whining will prevent it.

Either take harsh preventative action to limit the damage (ie massive disruptive watermarks) or don't ever upload it in the first place.

Assume that the buggers who buy prints will scan it themselves, so price accordingly to get the money up front.

Then you don't have to stress about people stealing it, because your pay day is already done.

Have you seen how the movie companies release rubbish quality DVD's in Russia really early on? They do it to sell them as quickly as possible because if they don't someone else will be selling a camcorder version in the same time frame - better they get some cheap sales than no sales at all.

You can argue thats quite wrong, but its interesting to see how pragmatic they can be when they want to...
 
I am positive there are countries that, once you purchase media, you are free to do with it as you please. It's just in this country and the USA that you still have to abide by all sorts of rules. Let's face it, who hasn't lent a DVD or a CD to a friend?
 
I think its just more people are aware of copyright on tv, dvd, vids, software and games.

You could pretty much buy all this stuff from a 'market' or elsewhere before the internet sharing took off (really when broadband became available) but it was clearly illegal and I'd say the vast majority knew this anyway.

What wasn't shared back then was photographs IMHO. You may have seen someones wedding or 'other' album, borrowed it, looked at it and gave it back. Were additional copies frequently requested? well maybe, but not from my own personal experience unless it was an image of importance to the family. So easy access to images online, from a multitude of photosites (non peer to peer) really doesn't promote the copyright aspect IMHO.

I believe it is simply people are unaware that copyright exists in images.

There was also that Knockoff Nigel tv ad and as far as I can remember it concentrated on downloading films and music - presumably funded by large companies in the industry. No mention of images/photographs.

It is down to education. Before I joined this forum and got the bug, I honestly wasnt aware that copyright was so staunchly defended in photography - it really did not occur to me. I know ignorance is no defence but I honestly didn't know!
 
joescrivens said:
I keep seeing threads where people are fuming that some clinet scanned in a photo, or took the web version from a site etc and people seem to be annoyed that the client doesn't 'get' copyright.

But in the world we live in now is it surprising they don't?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I also wonder how many photographers here have never copied a CD for a friend (or lent it to them so they could copy it), or used pirated software at some stage. Not that many I suspect if we are being honest.
 
desantnik said:
You just need to make the assumption that your stuff will be stolen and reproduced if it makes it onto the internet.

No amount of whining will prevent it.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Good photographers will always earn a living. Get a good price for the job you are doing then move on. These copyright debates do nothing for anybody, nobody comes out of them looking good. People need to move with the times or fall behind, it's the way it has always been in all professions. :shrug:
 
I think most people understand perfectly well that copying an image isn't 'right', even if they don't know exactly why - ignorance is no defence. The same goes for downloading content from repositories which aren't licensed to hold or distribute the content. It's up to the provider to ensure that restrictions are in place (eg disable right clicking, watermarking, prominent copyright notices) to enforce the terms under which they are licensed.

In the examples you mention, the content provider will generally have licensed the service provider (which may the same entity) to provide the content in the ways you mention. When the content and service provider are a photographer, it's up to them to licence and enforce in the appropriate way. If someone has the opportunity to use an image in a way which is detrimental to the photographer, then they should have thought more carefully about what they were doing.

I'm constantly amazed by how oblivious, incompetent and stupid a lot of folk are, so it comes as no surprise to me that people think they can do what they want with images. I have now reached a position where I have zero patience, which is a shame really.
 
py6km said:
I think most people understand perfectly well that copying an image isn't 'right', even if they don't know exactly why - ignorance is no defence.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's this at all. When Joe schmo buys a print of his child from the school photographer. He want's to show anti flo in Oz and so he scans it in and emails it, or puts it as his facebook pic.

Joe schmo doesn't think there is anything wrong with this ... he bought the pic, why can't he do what he wants with it. He's not aware it isn't right as you claim at all.
 
joescrivens said:
I don't think it's this at all. When Joe schmo buys a print of his child from the school photographer. He want's to show anti flo in Oz and so he scans it in and emails it, or puts it as his facebook pic.

Joe schmo doesn't think there is anything wrong with this ... he bought the pic, why can't he do what he wants with it. He's not aware it isn't right as you claim at all.
Click to expand...

That's a matter of opinion (yours), not fact. If the photographer hasn't made it clear how the image is licensed, that's their fault. By the same token Joe Schmo can upload a copy of the latest Blu-Ray he's bought so that his auntie can download and watch it. I'm not sure what you're trying to say - that people's ignorance of the law, and photographer's apathy to enforce or enunciate their rights is understandable?
 
One of the issues with copyright in cases like this is not so much knowledge (or lack of it) of the relevant law, but what people feel is right.

If you buy a CD, most people are happy to rip the tracks to their PC, MP3, iPod, etc without consideration of the legality - they have bought the CD, and just want to listen to the music - the fact that this is illegal is simply not an issue (and is unlikely to be ever prosecuted).

The same applies to Photos - once someone has bought a photo, the perception of many is that they should then be able to copy it for their use. After all, making the second copy is not a creative process, it is a simple copy, why should they pay someone else to do it? Surely a small scan for Facebook counts as 'fair use', etc.

I am NOT saying this is my view, just what I think many of the 'general public' feel.
 
py6km said:
That's a matter of opinion (yours), not fact. If the photographer hasn't made it clear how the image is licensed, that's their fault. By the same token Joe Schmo can upload a copy of the latest Blu-Ray he's bought so that his auntie can download and watch it. I'm not sure what you're trying to say - that people's ignorance of the law, and photographer's apathy to enforce or enunciate their rights is understandable?
Click to expand...

pretty sure I wrote "I think" ... just checking, ah yes I did. So I realise this is my opinion, no need to point that out.

You are missing the point. Joe schmo wouldn't upload his blu ray disc to auntie flo - but he might send it to her to borrow - this is also breaching copyright but joe schmo doesn't know this.

When joe schmo is buying a print he doesn't think he's buying just a print in the same way he does when he is buying a DVD. He thinks he is buying the photograph itself and can do with it what he wishes.
 
Faldrax said:
One of the issues with copyright in cases like this is not so much knowledge (or lack of it) of the relevant law, but what people feel is right.

If you buy a CD, most people are happy to rip the tracks to their PC, MP3, iPod, etc without consideration of the legality - they have bought the CD, and just want to listen to the music - the fact that this is illegal is simply not an issue (and is unlikely to be ever prosecuted).

The same applies to Photos - once someone has bought a photo, the perception of many is that they should then be able to copy it for their use. After all, making the second copy is not a creative process, it is a simple copy, why should they pay someone else to do it? Surely a small scan for Facebook counts as 'fair use', etc.

I am NOT saying this is my view, just what I think many of the 'general public' feel.
Click to expand...

nail. head. hit

This is exactly my point!
 
joescrivens said:
When joe schmo is buying a print he doesn't think he's buying just a print in the same way he does when he is buying a DVD. He thinks he is buying the photograph itself and can do with it what he wishes.
Click to expand...

How do you know people think that?
 
Photographs are different to Music/Video, in that the likes of Portraits are personal, and when you get a photographer to do a portrait, the public will believe as those photos were taken for them, that they are to do with as they please, and they'll think that because the images are personal, the photographs are pretty much useless to the photographer.

(If you get my drift......;) )
 
redddraggon said:
Photographs are different to Music/Video, in that the likes of Portraits are personal, and when you get a photographer to do a portrait, the public will believe as those photos were taken for them, that they are to do with as they please, and they'll think that because the images are personal, the photographs are pretty much useless to the photographer.

(If you get my drift......;) )
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
Yes yes and yes....but if the client isn't educated or aware of copyright law, then how are they to know differently.

Music,software, games, vids etc are often discussed with regards to copyright breach - but only on here I have ever heard photo copyright discussed. Can't say I've heard it much on tv, radio, in public.

Copyright is often discussed on here on outwith this thread, so even amongst this community copyright law is not entirely clear to all who view or contribute.

You could say its a 'known known' on here to those who 'know'

Whether or not the client breaches copyright thereafter is another issue.
 
Its true, if you take a photo of someone they generally automatically think they own some part of it it in some way. Hence why half of the football team i shoot have used my flickr photos as their Facebook pics, without my permission. But i fully expected them to, i didnt fill them in on all the legalities beforehand (my decision) and they probably have no idea that what they've done is technically illegal, if i told them - they'd probably think i was joking.

Generally people arent clued up about image copywrite, or to be more accurate they are just ignorant of it enough, to go and copy it without feeling like they've done something wrong. People know that its wrong to sell other peoples creative work, but when it comes to using something on facebook or painting Micky Mouse on their kid's bedroom wall, they see it as perfectly harmless.



To be honest if people wanna use my 800x500 pics as thier facebook profile, then im flattered tbo, but thats probably a whole different discussion.
 
Last edited:
I think people just expect to be able to share things they have paid for. In the old days sharing meant physically showing a photograph, but with web 2.0 and social networking, sharing means digitally sending images around.

The market needs to change to adapt to conditions in my opinion. I spend a lot of time speaking with publishers who get ****ed off that teachers break their DRM and change the content they bought and I have to tell them, the only reason they do that is because you don't give it to them in a from they want, get over your protection issues and provide the teachers with what they want.

If you give them an image of Carbon dioxide molecule in a textbook. They are going to scan it, and split it up into carbon and oxygen, so they break your DRM. But give them a digital carbon and oxygen molecule and they have what they want and won't need to break your copyright agreement.

The world is changing and we should adapt ...... including Santa with his prints !!!! :D:D:D
 
Who does understand copyright? Seriously, most of the folks on here that post about it usually get it wrong. That's because the law is complex, confusing, and counter intuitive.

But the fundamental problem with copyright laws is that they run counter to natural justice. Even when you clearly explain it to someone who has breached your copyright, they think the law has got it wrong. That's why it gets abused and ignored.
 
Care to expand on that Hoppy? (not being difficult, just looking for the specifics :D)
 
desantnik said:
Care to expand on that Hoppy? (not being difficult, just looking for the specifics :D)
Click to expand...

i would say a perfect example is with not being allowed to lend someone a dvd you bought. Thats ridiculous wouldn't you say?
 
I'm never sure whether "lend" is as in "lending library" or lend as in my father can borrow my copy of a book/film/CD
 
desantnik said:
Care to expand on that Hoppy? (not being difficult, just looking for the specifics :D)
Click to expand...

I don't really want to get into this - again! :eek: The thing is, technolgy has changed and the loopholes in the old 1988 Act have been blown apart. Anyone can shoot a good quality image, or they can copy/scan an existing one, and they can also publish it internationally in seconds. This requires zero skill.

That has never been possible previously, and it destroys the 'gate keeper' status of the photographer with negatives and prints. In other words, pre-digital it didn't really matter about the rights and wrongs of it all, because the photographer controlled the only means of good quality printing and distribution of images.

I'm not saying copyright protection is wrong, as it most certainly is not, far from it. Let me make that clear. It's there to protect intellectual property of value - work that has taken skill and effort to create - and that is absolutely right.

However, the very nature of photogaphy is a two-part process at least. There is the photographer, and there is also the subject. In law, the subject usually has no rights at all, despite the fact that without the subject no picture would exist in the first place.

Take the example of a TFCD shoot, where the model posts images on FaceBook or whatever, or even gets them published. The photographer goes mad (and usually posts indignantly on here that some dreadful crime against humanity has been committed) but the model cannot see what wrong has been done. And I think she has a very good point, especially given the context of why the pictures were taken in the first place.

Take a wedding shoot, where the photogapher has been paid hundreds of pounds, even thousands, yet the couple have no legal rights to the images. If they scan some prints and put them up on the web for friends and family, they get sent a massive invoice! That's ludicrous with any commissioned and paid work.

Another example - in the past, if somebody takes one of your prints and pins it on the office notice board, you'd be flattered. But if it gets scanned and goes on the web, everyone goes mad. The act is the same in principle, just the technology has changed, and maybe a lot more people get to see it. That's a good things isn't it?

I'll stop there, but it is a massive and very complex problem - trying to decide what works need protecting and what doesn't, who should hold the rights, and how they should be enforced.
 
I see what you mean... and it strikes me that these aspects are different to other areas of copyright (eg films, books, architecture, music, product design etc).
 
desantnik said:
I see what you mean... and it strikes me that these aspects are different to other areas of copyright (eg films, books, architecture, music, product design etc).
Click to expand...

Yes, the whole thing is very difficult. Another couple of things, just observations really.

Say you're an MP answering questions from the press. One reporter writes down your answers, and another one has a tape recorder. Who owns the rights to what was said? Well, the guys that made the 'permanent record' in writing and on tape, they own the rights to the words in those respective mediums (or perhaps their employer does) but the MP who actually spoke them has no rights. On the other hand, if the MP had issued a written statement, that has permanence, he would own them.

Another thing, copying CDs and other illegal pirate practises are apparently killing music. Well no, they're not actually. They're ruining the profits of music publishers, but that's not the same thing at all. The 'value' of the music was locked up in a CD, but when you no longer need a CD to access the music, the real cost of the music proves to be very low indeed.

And far from killing music, there seems to be just as many people making just as much music these days, and even more people listening to it. It has also sent a lot more musicians out on the road performing concerts, because they can make money by selling a unique musical experience. That is worth paying for, whereas a bit of plastic is not.

Why should a jobbing photographer's work by protected with special laws any more than the work of another skilled tradesman? The plumber who fits a new boiler doesn't charge according to how much water gets heated, or how often, for how long. It would obviously be impossible. He does a job, gets paid for his time and skill, and that's it. However, until now, a photographer has been able to control who sees their images, when and where, and when you control the supply directly, you can charge for it. A lot of that control has now broken down, and for me it begs the question, in a lot of cases, of whether it was the right way of doing things in the first place. Or should I say post the 1988 act, which reversed much of the rights position that applied before then.

The other problem with copyright - apart from the fundamental moral position that is supposed to underpin it - is that many photographers have a huge vested interest in maintaining things the way they are, right or wrong. And that is now rubbing up against another very powerful force, publishers, who want to exploit the great mass of essentially free material washing about on the web.

It's actually about money at the end of the day, nothing to do with artistic rights and morals. And ultimately, the party with the most money will win. So there at least, no change ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
Snip

It's actually about money at the end of the day, nothing to do with artistic rights and morals. And ultimately, the party with the most money will win. So there at least, no change ;)
Click to expand...

Very true. I've never really agreed with 'the photographer always owns the copyright' The way I see it is this ..... If I contracted a photographer to cover my wedding and produce a set of fine quality prints, which he does. Why should I not be allowed to copy those prints as many times as I wish? Could it not be argued that I own copyright of the wedding he has just recorded? Not much different to someone recording, photographing a theatre production that I had produced. They may be able to take the pictures but not distribute them without my consent. So what would be different about my wedding? The photographers copyright would be worthless anyway.
 
HoppyUK said:
It's actually about money at the end of the day, nothing to do with artistic rights and morals. And ultimately, the party with the most money will win. So there at least, no change ;)
Click to expand...

I wonder if they will win this time.

There already seems to be a change with artists taking more control, easier distibution even free albums ultimately being used as promotional material.

I think the web easily fuels and organises the masses against the classes mentality.

Maybe business models will have to change, using the plumber analogy. I know that won't be a popular statement on here. Maybe an increased price from the start, or industry supported pricing model will be a necessary driver.

It seems unlikely whether a client is aware or not of copyright law regarding photography....access to a cheap scanner will quickly overcome the moral situation with regards to it. IMO. Or do you go to court, time, hassle and reputation to consider? Future work or referrals?



Andy
ps...im not supporting copyright breach, just thinking of how not to lose revenue.
 
Splog said:
Very true. I've never really agreed with 'the photographer always owns the copyright' The way I see it is this ..... If I contracted a photographer to cover my wedding and produce a set of fine quality prints, which he does. Why should I not be allowed to copy those prints as many times as I wish? Could it not be argued that I own copyright of the wedding he has just recorded? Not much different to someone recording, photographing a theatre production that I had produced. They may be able to take the pictures but not distribute them without my consent. So what would be different about my wedding? The photographers copyright would be worthless anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. It's kind of ridiculous, but the photographer can control the use of the pictures, and therefore charge accordingly, wheras you cannot control the rights to your own self-image. Witness all the security which surrounds celebrity weddings, which is limiting the access to their image, and maintaining financial control that way.

One of the other difficulties here is the business model which many wedding photographers use, which is only a couple of hundred quid to turn up and do the shoot, and then they charge rocket for the album and prints. It's only a marketing tactic as the costs and profit are achieved at the end of the day, but weddings togs fear that they'll lose business if they go flat out and say two grand and you can have everything. On the other other hand, prints are being scanned and copied anyway... :shrug:
 
The photographer chooses the lens, the ISO, the apeture, the DOF, the composition, the lighting, shooting position, forsight etc.. So artistically, the photographer ought to have rights

The content of the image may include items also subject to copyright - artworks, trademarks, and then also may contain the work of other individuals.. MUA's hair stylists etc... So there is a lot more in the mix to consider

The copyright or release a client gets is determined by contract, in the absence of a contract, it lays with the photographer

In practicable terms - dont give anyone an image you are not comfy in knowing it will probably be duplicated. If its a big deal get a contract. If its a really big deal, get a really big contract, and enforce it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top