Unhappy with Studio photos - thoughts needed

Hehe - you guys :D

I wasn't here to assassinate the photographer - I was just asking an opinion or two as what one person sees, another doesn't. In my opinion, some of the photos weren't acceptable but I just wanted others thoughts as maybe I was making a mountain out of a molehill.

As you were :)
 
Richard King said:
The chestnut in question was "I have the disk" ... "I thus have the copyright, so I can do what I want"

I am still not commenting on the photographs
Click to expand...

For my information, is that wrong ? If the photographer tells you that "if you buy the disc you can do what you want with the photos, print them, put them in the 'net etc" then should I not take that statement at face value ? Especially when they qualified it with "if you only buy a print, we retain the copyright"

It seems to have generated a lot of discussion so I assume its a muddied point ? Or is it that most studios retain the copyright and people do as they wish regardless ?

Always willing to learn :thumbs:
 
I'm not saying you do not have copyright but it is rare for a studio to give copyright away with a disk of images. There might be a word/PDF or similar file on the disk with the images confirming that you have copyright or at least what rights you have with the images......printing etc.

Until you deffo confirm you have copyright any forum, including TP, will remove the images as it is the forum owners that will end up in the courts if it turns out you you do not have copyright.
 
ZoneV said:
Why would it not be the case if that's what Damian was told in the studio?
Click to expand...

Because many so called 'pros' tell people that they're handing over copyright and they haven't got a clue what it is they're saying. They usually just intend the customer to be able to print freely.

If I hand over 'copyright' to a customer:
I can't keep a copy of the files as backup without permission for every time they're written
I can't sell prints to any other interested parties ( ie the OPs sister in law)
I can't use any of the images in my marketing.

The customer can set up in business using my images as his portfolio
He can sell them to another photographer for a similar purpose
He can sell them on for editorial or stock

Its not unknown to sell copyright, but not a common practice in social photography for the above reasons.
 
Ok, fair enough.

I won't be posting in the "most viewed in Flickr" thread tomorrow then :o
 
Pookeyhead said:
Also... one hour session and 92 shots (I bet more was actually taken as well) = one shot every 39 seconds. That's not photography, that's machine gunning everything just happens and hoping for the best.
Click to expand...

there is no set way to shoot. if you want to shoot lots that's your choice if you want to shoot less so be it. the method is irrelevant.
 
POAH said:
there is no set way to shoot. if you want to shoot lots that's your choice if you want to shoot less so be it. the method is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It hasn't worked here though, whatever the 'method' was. If you took one image every 39 seconds and nailed a good few of them then I guess there could be an argument for what you're saying but there really isn't if the photographer couldn't nail any!

Personally I'd still like to see someone shoot 20 images and nail 18 of them than shoot 100 and nail 3. Or none, in this case.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Because many so called 'pros' tell people that they're handing over copyright and they haven't got a clue what it is they're saying. They usually just intend the customer to be able to print freely.

If I hand over 'copyright' to a customer:
I can't keep a copy of the files as backup without permission for every time they're written
I can't sell prints to any other interested parties ( ie the OPs sister in law)
I can't use any of the images in my marketing.

The customer can set up in business using my images as his portfolio
He can sell them to another photographer for a similar purpose
He can sell them on for editorial or stock

Its not unknown to sell copyright, but not a common practice in social photography for the above reasons.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I get the point re copyright but if the photographer tells a customer they can do as they like with the pictures, as Damien has said...

"if you buy the disc you can do what you want with the photos, print them, put them in the 'net etc"
Click to expand...

...where does the customer stand then?
 
ZoneV said:
Fair enough, I get the point re copyright but if the photographer tells a customer they can do as they like with the pictures, as Damien has said...



...where does the customer stand then?
Click to expand...

Maybe a better way of describing it would be unrestricted permission to use?
 
guy would have had less shots had the photographer not shot so many though. If a person can't photograph correctly its irrelevant wither they shoot 20, 40, 60 or 160 per hour but there is no right number per hour you should be aiming to click which is my point. some people shoot lots others shoot less.



PMN said:
It hasn't worked here though, whatever the 'method' was. If you took one image every 39 seconds and nailed a good few of them then I guess there could be an argument for what you're saying but there really isn't if the photographer couldn't nail any!

Personally I'd still like to see someone shoot 20 images and nail 18 of them than shoot 100 and nail 3. Or none, in this case.
Click to expand...
 
Just had a look at the disc now I'm home - it says " images copyright released " on it.

I assume this means that the studio don't hold the copyright anymore ?
 
PJ S said:
Is this going to be a game of internet charades?
Sounds like?
2 syllables, first word THE

Fill in the missing blanks and enlighten us then.
Click to expand...

Nope this is going to be a game of education.

You don't understand copyright law.

Copyright can only be assigned in writing.

Verbal assignation has no legal standing what-so-ever.

You are now suitably enlightened.
 
damianmkv said:
Just had a look at the disc now I'm home - it says " images copyright released " on it.

I assume this means that the studio don't hold the copyright anymore ?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that has no legal standing unless you have a signed bit of paper assigning copyright to you. :)

Unfortunately it looks as though the photographer doesn't understand copyright on top of all his other mistakes!
 
Last edited:
damianmkv said:
Just had a look at the disc now I'm home - it says " images copyright released " on it.

I assume this means that the studio don't hold the copyright anymore ?
Click to expand...

Because they're morons all ways round.

There's no such thing as releasing copyright (in law). You hold the copyright until you transfer it. You can't release it, they just mean that they'll allow you to do anything you like with the images, but frankly, the wording wouldn't stand up in court. So whatever you do (including straightforward printing) they could potentially sue you because they haven't given you expressed permission to do so, and they hold the copyright.

They wouldn't do it (probably) because they consider themselves to have 'released' copyright to you - Morons:nuts:.

So we know they don't know how to use a camera, market their services, or sell licence of a product - Morons.

Did I mention I think they're morons?

BTW copyright is simpler than people make it sound - just think of it as 'right to copy', when you buy any product, you don't buy the licence to recreate it (whether it's a DVD or a table) you just buy one instance of the product to enjoy.
 
Jees - this is bloody ridiculous !

Something that should've been so simple is looking like it isn't. We only wanted some family photos...

Next time, I'll stay in bed

PS - "he" was a she :D
 
Last edited:
damianmkv said:
Jees - this is bloody ridiculous !

Something that should've been so simple is looking like it isn't. We only wanted some family photos...

Next time, I'll stay in bed

PS - "he" was a she :D
Click to expand...

You were sold a crap product and you came here for a sense check regarding the product - you've just been told everything the (lady) moron did wrong. Hopefully others will learn from this too, which is the point of Forums (Fora for the pedantic).
 
True. I just thought that someone selling a product would know what they were talking about.

But I guess a lot don't, regardless of the product
 
I think you can safely assume you now own the copyright (even though technically, you might not) as I don't think the studio is going to defend it.

If the studio thinks it has given away the copyright and you think you have received it then effectively, you have.


Steve.
 
damianmkv said:
So, I spoke to them and they were very apologetic. Their opening statement was that they had probably over compressed the files in editing, causing loss of sharpness - I said that almost half are OOF.

So, they will send out another disc with re-edited shots. Personally, I'd be surprised if this makes any difference but I have to be seen to be taking small steps, give them a chance of rectification first and see what happens.

This way, should they still be OOF, I'll have a stronger case
Click to expand...

Great, wait for the disk and see what happens
 
Phil V said:
...
So we know they don't know how to use a camera, market their services, or sell licence of a product - Morons.

Did I mention I think they're morons?
....
Click to expand...
:D They know how to get loads of dosh out of customers ... hey I'm assuming they got paid already and the OP isn't going to see any of it back.
 
Thanks for calling me a moron - appreciated :D

No chrimbo card coming your way :(
 
Last edited:
I was joking, Phil :D

The Internet doesn't do sarcasm :)

Like I've said a few times, I really do appreciate everyone's input to this. It's taught me a lot as I have next to no knowledge about the legalities of these things.

The main thing is that I get shots which the girls are happy with. Wifey happy = less misery.
 
Last edited:
I hope you dont mind Damian, but I was bored and I thought I would have a go and see if I could get it any better.
[URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/50549303@N04/8644070734/in/photostream"[/URL]
 
I can see it :) that's much better so it can be sorted ( fairly ? ) easily

Thank you

( I have no idea how you achieve these results as I'm pants at PP - can you help me please ? )
 
Last edited:
That's not actually any better, it's still just as soft as it was. Nothing to do with anyones skill level - the image is out of focus; It can't be sorted or saved.
 
Is it not ? I'm on my phone so am limited to an iPhone 4's measly screen
 
well it`s by no means perfect and it won`t offer close scrutiny ,there`s only so much that you can do with such a low res image and if the photographer missed the focus in the first place it`s impossible to get it back, but I thought it was a nice pic of your kids and was worth a go.
 
It still looks much better to me ( they're my nephew and niece ) so I appreciate your efforts, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top