FAO Photographers

Dont know if this is useful to anyone on here, but its written from experience. HTis should help anyone who has had images used without permission:

http://guerillaphotography.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/getting-payment-for-stolen-photographic-images/

Thanks

nick

is there any info about claiming a retrospective location fee and issuing a property release when shooting on private property without permission?

also you don't mention a 'license to use' which is actually far more important than an invoice (payment of the latter means the former becomes valid)

a copy of the Beyond the lens available from the AOP would be a good place to start.

wow can we rename u MrNegative.

This works for me, as for property releases, never used one, never needed to.

i'm not being negative just saying that a license to use is very important.
you have managed to extract some money from somebody who has used your image, as far as they are concerned they now 'own' that image and can use it whenever and wherever they like if there is no license or clause on the invoice saying what territory or media the image can be used in.
it's standard practice to issue an invoice and a separate licence with the line "no licence to use will be issued until payment of invoice"
the license will have something like
territory: U.K or continental europe
media: catalog, instore display, right up to 48sheet poster or press ad. the fee will dictate where it's used.
duration of license: 1year 2 year up to in-perpetuity which is basically a buy-out.

so what happens if a property owner wants compensation for you using their property for a shoot?
the reason photographers use watertight paperwork is that it indemnifies themselves against having to compensate for a cock-up because of lack of permission or paperwork.
i find it odd that on the one hand the theft of your intellectual property/image rights must be compensated for but not that of private landowners?

I guess that's the 'all property is theft' principle at work

You show him Smythy!!!

Thanks for the advice, I do send a licence to use with all my work, but have never used a property release. I may in future but never seen the need to.

Thanks for that.

Can anyone help with the image rights when uploading to Flickr, I heard somewhere that they own them, is this right?
I'm looking for somewhere to upload pictures for easy viewing, maybe tumblr is the way to go.

You show him Smythy!!!

\reported for stalking

\reported for stalking

logs off for an hour and peels a banana

anyone who makes a living from photography or photographers worried about misuse of their images will find a copy of beyond the lens useful
http://www.beyond-the-lens.com/

sorry this is well off topic but talk of licence etc made me think.

What would happen if, for example, somone owned a piece of artwork which was then featured in an article - would it be the person who photographed the artwork for the magazine own (if that's the right terminology) the image, would it be the person who actually owned the artwork or is it the artist?

The only reason I ask is that a piece of art I bought from a student appeared in an article and I wondered if I could get any money off the magazine? (Not that I would ever try this as I was made up the artist was featured as I really like his work but was wondering how these things work in principle for when the Sun start featuring it - as if- and I could get my 50p).

Feel free to tell me to bugger off

there is the payback scheme administered by DACS
http://www.dacs.org.uk/index.php?m=4

AFAIK the artist or his estate owns the image rights even though you have the original in your possession.
just as owning the master tapes of a piece of music doesn't mean you have the publishing rights.

or just ignore me for being full of internet armchair bullshit theory™

^^ thank you MrSmyth

What principle (either legal or moral) covers the right of property owners to be compensated?

Other than the fact that photographs removes part of the soul of the subject.

the right of ownership.

there are exceptions to do with identifiability (is that a real word?) and how much of the land/building is part of the image and if it is viewable from a public space or road.
there are also exceptions for editorial use.

but essentially if you need a location for a shoot you pay a fee and get a property release. there are lots of location finding agencies out there or you arrange it yourself.
there are other rights issues to do with buildings and architects having rights on the design.

copyright is a separate issue. you rarely see the eiffel tower in advertising because they copyrighted the lighting design and it costs a fortune to licence the image rights to the lit up tower. the happy birthday song is also copyrighted and is rarely seen in films. most people think it's a 'trad arr' but isn't

with all the fuss muicians are making about free downloading of their music surely there must be some organisation looking after the welfare of photographers and the copying of their images ?

No it isn't. It doesn't even exist as a concept.
What if they just give the images back? Then it's not theft.

what is there to give back? it's not a print or a physical object it's just data that forms a recognisable image
you can't just say "sorry i don't want them anymore"
if you have proof of use then you have a right to be compensated even if the infringement was in the past.

with all the fuss muicians are making about free downloading of their music surely there must be some organisation looking after the welfare of photographers and the copying of their images ?

yes. the AOP and numerous others who came together to form stop43 as a reaction to clause 43 of the digital economy bill. although there was a fallout with BAPLA who had other ideas and tried to shaft all the other organisations who were working in the photographers interests

That was kind of my point.
No - you have the right to sue for breach.

that was kind of my point.
but i'm a photographer who has a grasp of the law not somebody who works in law and has a grasp of photography.

we are nit-picking over terminology which isn't the issue.

Thanks for the advice, I do send a licence to use with all my work, but have never used a property release. I may in future but never seen the need to.

If you shoot on private property without permission, then you are asking for trouble later on. When you publish and the owners stumbles across the picture, they have right to act.
Especially those from Heritage Trust and such.

that was kind of my point.
but i'm a photographer who has a grasp of the law not somebody who works in law and has a grasp of photography.

we are nit-picking over terminology which isn't the issue.

Nitpicking is a single unhyphenated word.

[/nitpicking]

Which body of English law covers the above then?

i don't know. all i do know is that if i want to use a location for an advertisement or brochure etc i have 2 choices. i 'wing it' and hope nothing happens or the client pays for a location. we pay on the day and get an invoice plus a signed property release.

i don't do 'winging it' unless the background is so unrecognisable that it can't be proven i was even there and the shoot will hardly go unnoticed i.e just me and a camera with no tripod and no lights/client/assistant/computers/vehicles etc

i can't remember the last time i did this. you have to explain to a client that if you get moved on and the shoot doesn't happen or any legal repercussions are all down to them. they then see the sense of paying a location fee.

If you shoot on private property without permission, then you are asking for trouble later on. When you publish and the owners stumbles across the picture, they have right to act.

Sometimes it is cheaper to have them whacked than to negotiate a fee.

Never rule out a whacking.

If you shoot on private property without permission, then you are asking for trouble later on. When you publish and the owners stumbles across the picture, they have right to act.
Especially those from Heritage Trust and such.

don't forget the royal parks. they love photographers :-)

So what if I had my picture take alongside a celebrity in a public place, then I download that image and upload to my blog, do I have any rights if the photog complains ....as I am a subject and had not signed a release?....this happened, I removed the image.

So what if I had my picture take alongside a celebrity in a public place, then I download that image and upload to my blog, do I have any rights if the photog complains ....as I am a subject and had not signed a release?....this happened, I removed the image.

I can't see why, if it was non-commercial, and did not infringe their privacy.

public place and non commercial.(regarding your face)
you would not need to sign a release.
if the image was used in an article titled CELEBRITY STALKER MENACES FILM STAR or PEADO CYCLIST STALKER FRIGHTENS CHILD STAR your moral rights would be infringed and you would be right to complain and possibly have a retraction published or compensation.

as to the photographer complaining about the image on your blog? dunno but he may have a legal right to be credited?