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

To be honest, I can't exactly say I am blameless with regard to copyright infringement - remember being young and having a tape to tape recorder which pretty much came as standard with a lot of systems rather than something you had to seek out? I remember being 15/16 or so and copying the heck out of anything I could get onto my turntable (not THAT long ago) or into my dual cassette deck. I suspect more than a few of you do too!!:D

I see so many of these threads that I wonder whether it's just better to market your package as 'if you buy more than two (or whatever) photographs, we will allow you to legally scan them' - after all, if the consumer doesn't understand copyright laws that could actually help you if you market it in the right way?? After all, if you KNOW people will abuse CR, at least make a couple of quid before the sale. Better than moaning about it after - I see so many posts about kids putting up the pic complete with watermark on FB that there MUST be a way for you to make this work for you? Especially if you know that you wouldn't gain more than the initial order anyway? :thinking:
 
HoppyUK said:
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:
Click to expand...

And raises another can of worms, a wedding service must by law be open to the public I'm informed by the registrar, or it's not legal.
The copyright thing is going back to the old artists and protecting their work, photography is seen as a form of that.
 
Last edited:
swanseamale47 said:
And raises another can of worms, a wedding service must by law be open to the public I'm informed by the registrar, or it's not legal.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but it doesn't mean it has to be in a public place! So restrictions could still be applied on the photography.
 
I agree with the comment about the impact of digital technology. We used to copy records to reel/cassette tape all the time in the "old days" and no-one got very excited, probably because the music industry knew they couldn't control it and it didn't have much impact anyway. Much the same could be said about photography. People haven't changed, but cheap and easy digital technology has changed a lot of things. FWIW, I lived in South Africa for a long time and respect for the law was, shall we say, rather selective? DVDs were very expensive but you could buy excellent knock offs from roadside hawkers for a fraction of the shop prices. Many "respectable" people bought them because they knew what these were selling for in the UK and in other countries and saw the retail prices as a rip off. Retail prices dropped significantly, and a lot of people saw this as a justification for breaking the law.

There was a long and pretty acrimonious debate about the 1988 legislation here a while ago. I think you'll remember this Richard? Before 1988, the client/customer commissioning the work owned the copyright, not the photographer. This is still the case in some countries and many pros insist on written transfer as part of their contract. The 1988 Act changed the default position in the UK. A lot of people are probably not aware of this, or are aware of it and simply ignore it because they feel it's unfair or because they "can". Why should the photographer "own" my wedding photographs?

Photographers have also reported people challenging them in public, insisting that it's illegal to take their photographs, or photographs of their kids, without their permission. This is nonsense of course, but these things tend to gain momentum and we could see pressure for a move towards the French legal position, where you can't publish a photograph without the subject's permission, even if it was taken in a public place. More legal complications for photographers.

I suppose lawyers will continue to earn fat fees from this sort of thing, but the issue isn't going to go away.
 
If people want to pass on my music to their friends for personal use, I don't really have a problem. Even though I may have spent hours and hours on it it's purpose is pleasure.

Now if you're selling my music or making money out of it by copying it and charging or passing it off as your own or not giving me credit then that's a different story, and is blatant theft.


I'd take the same approach with my pictures. Personal use, fine, do whatever you want, if you're amking money then I obviously want a portion of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top