copyright but not in the public domain Date Posted: Thu 27/01/2011 17:26:45 Scud New Member Joined: 14/04/2007 Posts: 4 View Profile | Search Posts Just a check really...I was asked to photograph a panto for an amateur dramatic society. Who has copyright to the images? I think since I was invited in, the am dram company can do what they wish - web site, print and display etc. Any knowledge or web sites to view please. Steve _________________ Steve

Re: copyright but not in the public domain Date Posted: Thu 27/01/2011 18:19:46 moses Master Member Joined: 30/03/2007 Posts: 24479 View Profile | Search Posts | View Homepage Have you tried getting the entire cast to sign a model release stating the terms of use of the images? _________________ Live life to the full for as long as you can, which is never long enough......

Re: copyright but not in the public domain Date Posted: Thu 27/01/2011 18:24:46 Scud New Member Joined: 14/04/2007 Posts: 4 View Profile | Search Posts Have not even thought of that point - I was asking for a general idea on who has the copyright. Now you have set me thinking... _________________ Steve

Re: copyright but not in the public domain Date Posted: Thu 27/01/2011 18:35:47 moses Master Member Joined: 30/03/2007 Posts: 24479 View Profile | Search Posts | View Homepage Set out your terms and conditions and remuneration for use of the images you capture and every one knows the playing field. Remember that if there are any minors the parents or an appointed chaperone must be present. Proof of age should be supplied in 2 forms if Iremember correctly. Shooting wildlife is a lot easier _________________ Live life to the full for as long as you can, which is never long enough......

Re: copyright but not in the public domain Date Posted: Fri 11/02/2011 07:36:33 Frankieboy Master Member Joined: 04/11/2007 Posts: 2497 View Profile | Search Posts | View Homepage I would have thought that the person commissioning the contract would have the copyright, but with limitations as to what could be done with the images, unless there was a written agreement stating otherwise. I could be wrong. In most cases the photographer hands over the prints, but retains the negatives, and the prints must not be copied. Further prints are only available from the original photographer, who might only keep the images for a limited time. In the case of digital photography, there appears to be a growing trend that the photographer is paid to take the photographs and hands over the media card to the commissioner, who then gets the images printed at his own expense. _________________ Just the absolutely dreadful photographs now.

Re: copyright but not in the public domain Date Posted: Sat 26/02/2011 19:06:24 jbartyman New Member Joined: 15/08/2010 Posts: 45 View Profile | Search Posts | View Homepage Copyright remains with the photographer - you set it up, you created the image - it is yours, simple as!  But it is just an AmDram affair after all!

Re: copyright but not in the public domain Date Posted: Tue 07/06/2011 21:21:16 Brett Critchley New Member Joined: 07/06/2011 Posts: 8 View Profile | Search Posts Not quite as simple as the photographer owning the copyright.  What do you want to do with the images once you have taken them?  You can sell them as editorial images but there would be a very limited market.  You can sell them to the drama company unless you have a agreed to do the shoot for free and you see it as good practice.  If you get model releases signed by all the cast you can do with the images as you please.  One of the things I shoot is models and "pay" them for there time in way of giving them copies of the images for their portfolio, for that they are required to sign a model release as I will sell the images to magazines or stock. So although you keep the copyright as the photographer without model releases you can see yourself in court.  Hope some of that rambling made sense. _________________ You can't get lost if you don't know where your going...

Re: copyright but not in the public domain Date Posted: Thu 09/06/2011 12:16:14 Andrew Wilson New Member Joined: 09/06/2011 Posts: 5 View Profile | Search Posts | View Homepage Copyright is yours unless you specifically sign it away - which you should never do! Message edited: 09/06/2011 12:16:39 _________________ Andrew

Re: copyright but not in the public domain Date Posted: Thu 09/06/2011 14:02:33 Frankieboy Master Member Joined: 04/11/2007 Posts: 2497 View Profile | Search Posts | View Homepage I think that we are entering a very grey area. For example: (1) A street photographer takes pictures of me, without my consent and then prints them and puts them on desplay for everyone to see, in the hope that I will buy them. He has the copyright, but doesn't have the right to publish them without a model release. (2) I hire you to take specific photographs of my product. You then work for me; you are my employee. You do not own the copyright nor have permission to publish the images. (3) You hire a model and you pay her. She is your employee and you own the copyright of any and all images produced. When you hire her, she signs a model release and you can publish the images of her. Or can you? If you were illustrating a book on prostitution, for example, and used your model suggesting that she was something that she was not, I think that you could be in a lot of trouble. I notice that on one site, which illustrates motorcycles, there is a note to the effect that all of the photographs are owned by somebody. If they are yours, let us know and will will put your name on the photograph. If you want us to remove the photograph, tell us and we will remove it immediately. Most amateur photographers are quite happy to let their photographs be used in newspapers and magazines just for a line of acknowledgement and editors use this to their advantage. It would be better, in the case concerned, to come to an agreement with the dramatic society before taking any images. Otherwise consult a solicitor who specialises in copyright law, but this would cost more than any money you are likely to make from selling images. I am not an expert on this subject and am only offering my personal opinion. (44 years in the profession and never been sued.) Message edited: 09/06/2011 14:04:42 _________________ Just the absolutely dreadful photographs now.

Re: copyright but not in the public domain Date Posted: Fri 12/08/2011 15:56:07 Tsundar New Member Joined: 02/08/2011 Posts: 2 View Profile | Search Posts Reading some bits from the web i'd say that if you're not an employee of the Am Dram society, i.e. they've not specifically hired you to take photos then the copyright is yours. I'd also say in reply to point a) of your email Frankieboy that as far as I know a street photographer working in public does not need a model release form, now I freely admit i'm not 100% on that but I think it's generally considered impractical to suggest that you need everyone in the scene to sign a form.  Check out crowd scenes in newspapers, there's no need for model release forms and the photograph is being used for commercial works.

Re: copyright but not in the public domain Date Posted: Fri 12/08/2011 18:34:47 Frankieboy Master Member Joined: 04/11/2007 Posts: 2497 View Profile | Search Posts | View Homepage Tsundar, that isn't what I said. _________________ Just the absolutely dreadful photographs now.

Back to Technical Talk

Powered by: wex photographic