What's in a name and copyright.

hannes

hannes

Suspended / Banned
Messages
36
Name
Hannes du Buisson
Edit My Images
Yes
There is a lighter side in this post but also a more serious side. I hope I am not upsetting anybody - no intention to - so apologies in advance if it does. I was just wondering, why would people (I deliberately did not use the word photographers) when they take a picture credit themselves as "Their Name" Photography? Is it not pretty obvious it's a photograph? Does it carry more weight if it says Photography, I don't know, I'm just asking? I always thought if you simply put down your name on your picture, the average viewer will work out it's your picture, taken by you. Unless Photography is a person's last name, what legal implications would it have in terms of copyright? If you not a registered entity for example Peter Pumpkin Photography and it says Peter Pumpkin Photography who holds the copyright? In South African copyright law the author of a photograph does not need to print on a photo his/her name to claim the copyright. You only need to prove you are the author. But if you publish to the world someone else who is not a natural or legal person holds the copyright you would not be able to claim copyright or sue. What would be the legal position in other countries?

What do other people think?
 
I don't think it is so much a matter of copyright but an identity. If you go by / trade as 'first name surname' it doesn't identify what you actually do. I appreciate when it's on a photography it's pretty obvious but else where ( advertising, website, search engines) you need the 'photography'. Personally I want to use the same logo regardless of location.

With regard to copyright I'm certainly no expert but if someone wants to clone out my little logo from a picture I've posted online I still own the copyright to my image and my details are still embedded in the file.

So for me it's more about identity / branding than copyright
 
I use my location plus photography as my domain name and a way of linking to my website.It's a fairly descriptive way of describing what I do.
 
You'll find that copyright law in most countries is the same as SA in this regard. I think people put their names onto their images not necessarily to protect their copyright as such, but rather for purposes of communicating their name and that of their business to others (and indeed many photographers will have "such and such Photography" as their practicing business name, as well as to discourage people from nicking their shots by adding watermarks which may be tricky to remove.
 
I think you're confusing branding with copyright.
 
hannes said:
when they take a picture credit themselves as "Their Name" Photography? Is it not pretty obvious it's a photograph? Does it carry more weight if it says Photography, I don't know, I'm just asking?
Click to expand...

fred bloggs photography takes a picture of man in street.. if he just puts fred bloggs.. confusion will dictate everyone thinks the man in the picture is called fred bloggs :)

You did say light hearted:)

PS good for google to add "photography" when crediting online...
 
The 'XYZ Photography' part is usually just branding, with an advertising benefit, as others have said.

SA copyright law differs in one major respect. In SA, the client owns the copyright to commissioned work by default, although a lot of professionals insist on transfer of copyright in their contracts. It's the other way round in the UK, where the photographer always owns copyright by default. Funnily enough, I think both countries reversed their previous positions on commissioned work at about the same time, around 1980.
 
I think that people who don't make their living from taking photographs put 'photography' after their names on watermarks to make themselves feel important. In reality it's just a pretentious fantasy.

IMO, of course. ;)
 
Ed Sutton said:
I think that people who don't make their living from taking photographs put 'photography' after their names on watermarks to make themselves feel important. In reality it's just a pretentious fantasy.

IMO, of course. ;)
Click to expand...

Does that include weekend warriors?

Hum pretentious fantasy photography has a certain ring to it - I wonder if the domain name is free :D

Incidently - why do you put photo into the title of your blog?
 
MartynK said:
SA copyright law differs in one major respect. In SA, the client owns the copyright to commissioned work by default, although a lot of professionals insist on transfer of copyright in their contracts.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? I come originally from SA and worked for a number of years as an artist for various television companies, and as far as I was aware, my various employers and clients only had copyright of my work if it was stipulated in our contracts. Perhaps photography works differently to other art mediums though.

I'm curious to investigate this now.
 
onona said:
Are you sure about that? I come originally from SA and worked for a number of years as an artist for various television companies, and as far as I was aware, my various employers and clients only had copyright of my work if it was stipulated in our contracts. Perhaps photography works differently to other art mediums though.

I'm curious to investigate this now.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure. I lived in SA for 30 years, and still spend some time there. It came up when we were making arrangements for my son's wedding photography a couple of years ago, and caused a few problems because his fiancée was adamant that she wasn't signing over copyright. Have a look here: http://saphotojournal.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=37&Itemid=96.

Clients owning copyright to commissioned work was the default in the UK before about 1980, and I have a feeling that some of the other Commonwealth countries still follow that system too.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Instead of plain text? To reduce the height of the title as I couldn't get the layout how I wanted it any other way. :)
Click to expand...

Sorry I wasn't clear. Your sig says Yet another photo blog. Why not just Blog as that's what it is?
Is it to make your blog sound important or is a pretentious fantasy blog? :D
 
Byker28i said:
Sorry I wasn't clear. Your sig says Yet another photo blog. Why not just Blog as that's what it is?
Is it to make your blog sound important or is a pretentious fantasy blog? :D
Click to expand...

For one thing it's not a blog - a blog is entries of written words. The sig is a knowingly ironic parody. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top