However a lot do try and fleece you, trying to sell you back your own photos.

They are technically NOT your own photos. They are the photos taken by somebody you hired to create images of your wedding. If you employed them as staff, provided their equipment and paid them a salary, Tax and NI etc; then they might be your own photos.

As a photographer image is everything. Your reputation relies on your images being presented in the best possible light (pardon the pun). People look at your images and evaluate your skills, expertise, talent etc on what they see. As a pro I like to ensure that the product (images) is presented in the best possible way, hence I have tight control over who prints the images and how they are printed. If I was to give 5 different people the same 5 CDs of images and told them to get prints made then I'd be looking at 5 different sets of prints (unless the obvious of course). Lesser photographers won't care that you dont get a quality product as long as they are paid and have delivered a service at a price. Fortunately there are more discerning clients out there who pay for quality and are extremely pleased with the results. They never think they are being fleeced.

I have acquaintances who are wedding photographers. One is dire, only supplies CD's but works a lot. Two is OK-ish but lacks some finesse and struggles to get clients sometime. Three is sublime and charges a LOT for a premium product - he is never short of work and only chooses what he wants to do. I know which one I'd choose.

Anyway - this is clearly off-topic from the original post. 'Nuff said.

We chose a good photographer, who passed the copyright ownership on to ourselves.

Are you sure they passed copyright on to you or did they pass on reproduction and distribution rights?

There is a big difference between the two.

And yes, I retain copyright on all the photographs I take at weddings as they are my intellectual property and without copyright I would not be able to use these pictures in any of my advertising or promotional materials.

Protecting your copyright is a big issue - you cannot stop someone from stealing your pictures (it has happened to me) but you can get compensation / payment from them afterwards through the small claims court (as has already been mentioned).

Couldn't have got better photos and still got all the images. Assume some are happy to be fleeced.

Couldn't have got better photos and still got all the images.

on your budget I'm sure you are right

Couldn't have got better photos and still got all the images.

But not copyright?

Could you have got better pictures with a higher quality (and more expensive) photographer? Probably - I haven't seen your pictures to be able to answer that question.

Just a note on distribution rights, check the policy of you web hosting site on these. If you post images on services hosted by Facebook, Google, Instagram, Flickr etc be aware you agree to certain things in the small print.

I felt like pitching in after reading the topic.

1. Question to Pros.

Shooting weddings and then using such photos to promote your work, which are populated by all manner of people, not only the happy couple, do you get model release forms signed?

2. There is no way on this world to stop people from doing whatever they want with your original creative material authors release to the public by various means. It is rather easy however to prove such material is illegally used - I do not know a way of recreating an original RAW image file from even HD quality webpage photo...

3. When pro photographers sell their work they first of all never sell original raw files, just jpegs of whatever other popular format in much lower quality but more than sufficient to allow their clients to print out 6x4 snap or the like for their grand parents or put on their webpage/social network website. This is covered under copyrights license and copyrights are not sold, passed or transferred in any other way.

4. I find adding pixel level, invisible copyright info if few places on the photo the best way as well as adding a visible info with your business name, web address etc somewhere in a corner of your picture. There are good paid services as well allowing you to digitally trace your photographs wherever they appear by embedding code (as mentioned before) then traced by specialist software. I do not know how it works but found it as a plugin for photoshop. I think it is great as you can freely upload good quality photos to your websites and the be ale to trace them.

5. Somebody mentioned that you cannot use ANY photographs you find online without authors permission. First of all they have to be clearly marked as copyrighted with info where to get such copyrights from otherwise they are pretty much deemed copyrights free and can be used by anybody for anything they like. Otherwise this forum will be crawling with copyrights lawyers trying to sue ALL members here as all of us at some point quoted other members posts containing images or inserted ones found online on various websites.

I may be wrong regarding the above so please correct or discuss as this subject interests me

I am not a pro photographer but I am heavily involved with other kinds of original material and copy rights.

I am not having a dig at pro photo guys either .

I'm a pro and none of that offended me!

1. Yes, from the B&G but not from each individual person at the wedding;

2. Proving a photo is mine is not difficult at all - after all, I have a whole set from the same wedding on the same day. Just a note, not all photographers shoot RAW, some shoot JPG (and some shoot on film - whatever that is...);

3. If my clients get digital files, they are full sized JPGS suitable for printing up to A3 - and I charge accordingly. I do frequently send web sized pictures for Facebook and the like gratis if I feel that my pictures look bad because they have stolen it from my site;

4. There is a plug in for Photoshop (and probably for other software) much of which is a paid service. This doe smake proving your ownership very easy and also makes finding illegal copies on the web easy as well. Visible watermarking is the best deterrent though;

5. I'm not certain on this - but I'll try to remember to check with a friend of mine who is a pro tog and very into copyright issues. As far as I am aware, all material on the web is copyrighted unless stated otherwise. Do not assume anything differently and you won't get in to trouble. If you use someone else's picture it should be clearly credited either in the photo or in the accompanying text.

HTH

Are you sure they passed copyright on to you or did they pass on reproduction and distribution rights?

There is a big difference between the two.

And yes, I retain copyright on all the photographs I take at weddings as they are my intellectual property and without copyright I would not be able to use these pictures in any of my advertising or promotional materials.

Protecting your copyright is a big issue - you cannot stop someone from stealing your pictures (it has happened to me) but you can get compensation / payment from them afterwards through the small claims court (as has already been mentioned).

I know there's a difference, that's why I confirmed it all

Copyright belongs to us, but he retains republication rights on a handful of photos for his business purposes.

In effect, we get the copyright to all our pictures, in exchange for republication rights and cash-monies!

5. Somebody mentioned that you cannot use ANY photographs you find online without authors permission. First of all they have to be clearly marked as copyrighted with info where to get such copyrights from otherwise they are pretty much deemed copyrights free and can be used by anybody for anything they like. Otherwise this forum will be crawling with copyrights lawyers trying to sue ALL members here as all of us at some point quoted other members posts containing images or inserted ones found online on various websites.

I may be wrong regarding the above so please correct or discuss as this subject interests me

5. I'm not certain on this - but I'll try to remember to check with a friend of mine who is a pro tog and very into copyright issues. As far as I am aware, all material on the web is copyrighted unless stated otherwise. Do not assume anything differently and you won't get in to trouble. If you use someone else's picture it should be clearly credited either in the photo or in the accompanying text.

HTH

As I've said before - everything you create is automatically covered under the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act. You don't need to advertise it as such, or even use a © etc. The protections afforded by the act pretty much only come in if someone is making money from your work, or is using your work in a way not covered by any license, or a way in which the creator does not approve of. There's also "fair use" to consider. Copyright can be transferred, and owned by people who did not create the work.

As a part time pro tog, I know the feeling

I've just resorted to using a visible watermark of my website and accept the fact that it might be stolen. If they reuse the photo without my permission (i.e. theft), then so be it. The photos I put online and made public (whether my photosite, facebook, picasa, whatever) I ensure I don't worry if they are stolen (limit the resolution, etc). I don't value the quality of my online photos high enough to want to digitally watermark them to be able to pursue those who nick them. But that's my personal choice.

You can put extra "metadata" in photos, and it's called EXIF. Be aware though that some online hosters may strip out this information so if you download the photo yourself and look at the EXIF data, you'll see it's all been removed. I can't remember if facebook do this, but I think they do. In any case, don't count on the EXIF as proof of originality - any data can easily be removed with any photo editing package.

Im a nature photography enthusiast i watermark all images posted online with my unique signature and also add the exif info.I use a tool called Mass Watermark that can batch process-watermark,resize,optimize,add exif info so that i can easily share my photos without going through the photoshop routine

I need to try that tool for batch processing

I know there's a difference, that's why I confirmed it all

Copyright belongs to us, but he retains republication rights on a handful of photos for his business purposes.

In effect, we get the copyright to all our pictures, in exchange for republication rights and cash-monies!

Makes no difference really whether you own the copyright or have a license to use them, it amounts to exactly the same thing. All you need is a license to use them so that you can copy/print at will.

5. Somebody mentioned that you cannot use ANY photographs you find online without authors permission. First of all they have to be clearly marked as copyrighted with info where to get such copyrights from otherwise they are pretty much deemed copyrights free and can be used by anybody for anything they like. Otherwise this forum will be crawling with copyrights lawyers trying to sue ALL members here as all of us at some point quoted other members posts containing images or inserted ones found online on various websites.

Yeah that's not true. As Babs has mentioned many times any original work automatically has a copyright. you don't need to register it (like trademarks) or apply for it (like patents) you just get it. If you use someone else's photo they can ask you to remove it as you have no right to use it. Damages claims would probably only succeed if they can prove loss, or that you are making money from their work. However that didn't actually work in the Baigent case, but hey ho.

Yeah that's not true. As Babs has mentioned many times any original work automatically has a copyright. you don't need to register it (like trademarks) or apply for it (like patents) you just get it. If you use someone else's photo they can ask you to remove it as you have no right to use it. Damages claims would probably only succeed if they can prove loss, or that you are making money from their work. However that didn't actually work in the Baigent case, but hey ho.

You sure? I agree that all original work is protected by copyright laws. However, by the nature of Internet in particular and if publish such work without clearly marking it as a material with restricted use then you are deemed to have granted a fair use open license . I am not sure if that is really the case in the court of law ...

I am pretty sure such license doesn't contain any permission for income generating use (advertisement of your business or plainly selling it as yours) and similar.

What I don't get is how would it work If I wanted to commercially use a photograph but there was no way I could locate the creator to discuss the terms with him/her? Simple answer would be not to of course:) There is a plethora of pro agencies selling all kinds of photos for really affordable license prices, usually with a great contextual tagging search systems.

There is a plethora of pro agencies selling all kinds of photos for really affordable license prices, usually with a great contextual tagging search systems.

Which these agencies will sell for peanuts at the moment (micro-stock)!

Which hasn't helped the photographers 'pension' as there is very little value in the pictures they put with agencies over the years.

Given that many pictures for commercial use can be bought for next to nothing, there is no need for a legitimate company to save a few pounds by 'stealing' lo-res pictures off the net.

I'm not burying my head in the sand, I know it still happens, but I think the real issue is in using someone else's work for your commercial gain.

You can't stop it happening (countries such as Thailand have no copyright laws) but you can minimise the likelihood with visible watermarking.

It my industry (weddings) it seems less prevalent than in, say, the landscapes or fine art sectors.

Yes I'm sure. I have a law degree and I've done intellectual property.

Yes I'm sure. I have a law degree and I've done intellectual property.

Ok, so by releasing say a photograph on the net, without any copyright markings, exif or any other kind of such info there is still no deemed free fair use licences being automatically granted?

If yes, than any non-income generating use ( again open to a warring interpretation ) or authorship claims is allowed?

If not what is the point of stamping anything with TM or copyright marks if it is protected from any use?

Then going further, imagine somebody releasing masses of material, without any of the mentioned markings, then somehow tracking it and then suing lots of people for copyright infringements? Entrapment surely?

Just to be clear I am all for copyrights as my line of works without it wouldn't exist and what I do nobody can even look at without explicit permission but I find copyrights at the time of widespread wideband Internet intriguing to say the least Hence me asking .

As for those agencies I agree, it it is like supermarkets with cheap meats and your local farm's butcher shop for the lack of better comparison .

But then again, those agencies get their photos from photographers who are willing to sell a licence/full copyright to them...

It is very popular in Continental Europe in my line of business-cheap mass production is like entropy and will always find its way in...

There is no licence granted unless expressly given. You do not have to mark it with a C or a TM (however you're not allowed to use an R unless it actually IS a registered trademark). EVERY photograph is owned by the photographer and you have no right to use it without permission, which may include payment. If you steal it and are not caught then lucky you, but that doesn't mean you had a licence to use it.

Trademarks don't have to be marked TM or R, the onus is on you to make sure you are not infringing trademark. They are all available to be checked online so it's easy enough to do.

Some people like to use C or TM to help make people aware that these protections exist but they absolutely do not have to. Also with a photo if its stolen but your watermark is on it a new customer may find you.

Of course there may be times when you grant a licence but don't realise, such as uploading on to fb (which, contrary to popular belief does NOT give them copyright ownership but does give them licence to use. Obviously, as they are hosting it for you).

Intellectual property law is very hard to police and enforce, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Edited 18 November, 201213 yr by Loz

And thank God for that

People have no understanding of intricacies of the copyright law (me here with internet and photos being a good example ) and make assumptions, which end them up in courts or being bullied into submission while threatened with £1k/hr litigation solicitors.

We had some good examples of Apple v Samsung recently. There was an article showing who is suing who in the world of smart phones. It was in a form of a "star graph". I made me chuckle as there was one specialist intellectual property law firm suing practically everybody on that graph lol.

The FB example is I think what I meant and by agreeing to T's&C's while posting on websites there is that license to use granted. Then again, if there is nothing in T'S&C's and photos are published and then re-used all over the place it makes it really silly and I really think that a fair use license should be automatically granted when pictures are published online or otherwise and there is no explicit statement revoking it. If a law is virtually impossible to police it is as good as dead needs novelisation.

I need to read briskie's T's&C's now .

The small print from FaceBook

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

There is also the "Commons" policy on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/ and myriad other rules and regulations http://www.meetarpit.com/understanding-copyright-on-flickr/

As others have said it is 1 thing to have the legal high ground but another to have the resources to pursue a claim against another party.

For clarity, so people do not get any wrong ideas

I am rather OVER-SENSITIVE with regards to copy rights and would never ever consider using other people's original work without license or pretending it was mine.

But I can see the dilemmas arising from the onset of wideband digital age and I am interested how this works from other people's experiences/knowledge base.

Would you say it be within such license to repost FB published photos further on on FB by other users, which I am sure happens all the time via "share" button?

I suppose there shouldn't be any problem there as it links directly to original poster's entry.

Same here on briskie I suppose as there is a bit about licensing in T's&C's here.

I think in general as long as you quote your source or link instead of copying and pasting then you should be water tight really.

And thank God for that

People have no understanding of intricacies of the copyright law (me here with internet and photos being a good example ) and make assumptions, which end them up in courts or being bullied into submission while threatened with £1k/hr litigation solicitors.

We had some good examples of Apple v Samsung recently. There was an article showing who is suing who in the world of smart phones. It was in a form of a "star graph". I made me chuckle as there was one specialist intellectual property law firm suing practically everybody on that graph lol.

The FB example is I think what I meant and by agreeing to T's&C's while posting on websites there is that license to use granted. Then again, if there is nothing in T'S&C's and photos are published and then re-used all over the place it makes it really silly and I really think that a fair use license should be automatically granted when pictures are published online or otherwise and there is no explicit statement revoking it. If a law is virtually impossible to police it is as good as dead needs novelisation.

I need to read briskie's T's&C's now .

To be fair though, an innocent mistake would end up going unpunished. If you decided to pinch someone's picture just to use in your blog or something then they don't really have grounds to sue you, they'd just tell you to remove it and you as an accidental offender would no doubt oblige. I think you'd know full well if you were trying to sell prints of someone else's work for example.

The fb thing only grants a license to fb to use your image. It still doesn't mean people are allowed to save it or use it elsewhere as its not the Facebook USERS who have the licence.