Hi,

My wife is starting up a small business around some specialist beauty treatments. She has setup a Facebook site for it (proper website to come later). I am wary of just uploading photos directly in case they get copied and used by others, but we obviously need to promote her work. I have seen it elsewhere that images are copyrighted with text/logos but I am not sure how to do this. Do you need specialist software or can it be done via the standard PC stuff? Also what is the best format to use so that people can't just copy and then remove the addition?

I have done some googling for this but am getting so many hits which talk a different language! Answers in terms even the idiot I am con understand would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Why not just take pics with items sat on something with name or web address on it

Yeah I know what you mean Xav, but if others can manage, why can't I? I'm just going to set up a website as a sideline then get applying for boring jobs :( oh well!

I've spent a small fortune on my photo gear and it costs me to keep it going (professional PL insurance, etc) but it's something I keep doing if/when I'm commissioned for a shoot. But once I've added it all together, for the amount I do, I'm spending more than I'm earning (at minimum, insurance + tax return + web site hosting costs...).

OFF TOPIC POST

Every job you take on at a loss undermines the value of the profession and takes a job away from the full time pros who need the work to make a living!

OFF TOPIC REPLY

I've always had this attitude to that argument: http://www.zarias.com/cheap-photographers-only-kill-themselves-not-the-industry/

But I'm only semi-pro, maybe I'd change my view if 100% of my income was togging?

Thanks!

I think that's a bit of a harsh and sweeping statement really, to suggest that someone getting into photography is 'ruining' it for those that want to charge the earth.

My own personal view is that in general photography is overpriced *hides from KB*

I mean everyone should be paid for their time and skill, but certain professions do seem to give the ability to provide fairly little for quite a lot of money.

I don't think I'm a bad photographer, but I'm more than well aware that I am nowhere near the best. I would like to be able to make money from my hobby, even if it is just making enough to fund itself buying cameras and lenses rather than being a main living for me. I don't have much in the way of experience of paid photography - especially weddings where there is a lot of pressure. I'd therefore want to price myself accordingly. I don't want to leap in charging £1500 for 40 photos in an album when I don't feel I'm worthy of that price tag. I also don't have a wide array of wedding photos in my portfolio - it would be unfair. So does that mean I'm no allowed to shoot weddings? Does it mean I'm never allowed to be a photographer? I don't think so personally. If I start low, get a portfolio, get a reputation and slowly raise my prices I don't see any harm in that. Point made in that article - not everyone can afford £1500 for photos. I certainly would begrudge spending that amount! Especially given some of the poor quality wedding photos I have seen in my time.

Also, anything I sell would be as a profit - it doesn't actually cost me anything to do it. Unless it was miles away lol.

Just my feelings on it.

How did you get into it KB? Do you work for a company or for yourself?

I started at 12 years old (29 years ago) at school where the skills I learnt from my father (camera controls, etc.) were refined by my art teacher. I was taught to process & print film from pictures I took at school if school plays, etc.

Following that, I taught myself with a manual only cheap Pentax rip-off camera and a 50mm prime (standard in those days) and a cheap 24-70 zoom.

Over the years I have paid money to some of the best photographers in the country to learn skills from them. I have chosen not to study a degree in photography as the practical application of these courses seems limited (and that comes from people who have studied the courses).

It was the digital revolution that gave me the confidence to really develop my photographic skills into a business. Having the EXIF data ready to hand, being able to shoot it again to see what effect the shutter speed has on the ambient light or what effect the aperture has on contrast is more accessible than the notebook (pen & paper) followed by a week wait until the film came back.

7 years ago I shot a few weddings alongside an established pro as his assistant, then went solo. I looked at a lot of photographers websites (we got married about that time and i wasnt allowed to photograph my own wedding) and realised that i was creating better pictures than many £1000 photographers in the West Midlands. I charged enough to cover costs on my first wedding and developed from there.

I agree that there is a place for good photographers at every price point and that not all brides can afford over £1000 for a wedding photographer.

For the money I charge, my couples don't just get me at their wedding for four hours and a CD of pictures that, in a lot of cases, are poorly lit, poorly composed, poorly edited and poorly presented.

If anyone wants to spend £350 on rubbish pictures, go for it.

Now I'm sure there are some good photographers coming through the ranks from other careers who are actually good at it and will survive and will (very quickly) go on to charge over £1000 a wedding and will offer more for that money (and still make more profit).

I applaud those people.

After all, we all start somewhere.

But rather than do 40 weddings a year at £500 and make £X to pay the bills, if rather do 20 weddings at £X++ and make the same profit and provide a more comprehensive and higher quality service using British products that are top of the range.

Agreed that many bride's can't afford my service. That's fine. I just hope they choose a cheaper photographer that can take good pictures and is a lot better than many 'flash and burn' 2nd income shooters out there who, like Mort make a loss running a 'business'. [Mort, I haven't seen any of your pictures so that comment is no slight on your photographic skills, just your current business model].

After all, that's not really a sustainable business plan!

Can we get back on topic now?

Excuse me Sir, Have you got a specific permission form the author of that photograph to be using it ?

Watch out, Copyright Police just got the scent

Good stuff. We are now back on subject!

I'm still waiting for a response to this topic, but suspect that whichever way it falls, it's only going to generate more debate on here that will never get resolved on here.

PS: apologies as that was meant to be a link to the source I got the picture from not the actual picture!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4ZgsVOuu_6M/UCW98q4CmRI/AAAAAAAABZo/9bFtOTrJXEw/s1600/I+am+an+artist.jpg

Now debate whether I am infringing copyright as I am linking to someone who may have infringed the copyright of someone who... You get the picture.

And also adds to the debate about actually being able to identify who the originator of the original work was.

Interesting stuff, cheers KB. I could do with finding an established photographer who will let me shoot as their second.

Agree completely about photography quals. I did an AS level in it at night school just for my own progress but it was rubbish. The only thing I learnt was darkroom, which is good, but that's no good to the people who couldn't use a camera

To me, and I don't want to offend anyone who has done it, but it seems to be one of those courses that people who can't pass real exams do :S it's all bull****, no learning, no proof necessary that you can use a camera. Just assessed on 'what do you think this photo MEANS'. Right. Not my bag at all! Give me a question with an actual answer!!

I would imagine its great for those who failed academic subjects and disappointing for those who genuinely want to learn photography.

Agreed that many bride's can't afford my service. That's fine. I just hope they choose a cheaper photographer that can take good pictures and is a lot better than many 'flash and burn' 2nd income shooters out there who, like Mort make a loss running a 'business'. [Mort, I haven't seen any of your pictures so that comment is no slight on your photographic skills, just your current business model].

No offence taken: It's impossible for me to make a loss on my business model as I'm salaried, so all the photographs I take for 'work' have a meaningless face value, one which I never see anyway. My own 'freelance' (read: hobby) photography is often made at a loss but is then 80% taken for myself rather than for income. Where I do work freelance It's usually for a business or organisation - and I'm therefore happy charging enough to cover any of my costs plus a decent margin.

That said, I'm not a great photographer, and there are plenty around much better than me. So I show my work (unplastered with copyright symbols and disclaimers, mind you) and I have frank conversations with potential clients to manage expectations - I don't own the amount of equipment a 'pro' would have and (as primarily a stage event photographer) I don't have much experience with things like weddings.

I'm not going to feel guilty if I 'steal' a job from a pro tog because I'm cheaper. I will, however, feel guilty if I create awful photographs and ruin the only chance someone may have at having everlasting memories of one of the happiest days of their lives. And for that reason I've happily turned down many weddings. A few I've done for friends and acquaintances knowing that they honestly cannot afford a photographer and that their mates with point-and-shoots would leave them with nothing to show for their big day - often those weddings are well below what a pro would charge and would likely be a loss or only a costs-covered price (not considering my time).

But most of my 'freelance' is jobs that I want to do for my own benefit, and if I just charge enough to cover any major costs then I feel that's fair – I'd never suggest myself over a professional because I'm cheaper. My job is my income, my photography is something I do because I fell in love with an OM-10 when I was 16.

And coming full circle, this may be why I'm precious about my images being mine, but also not willing to have to watermark them all, ruining the image, in order to protect what should automatically be covered by law. Simply because it's not my 'business', not my income and not my livelihood.

One thing that puzzles me in regard to the wedding photos, if the happy couple are paying the photographer to attend and provide the service, why do they then charge again for prints?, it just strikes me as wanting feeding with both hands.

Because every couple will want the photographer to take pictures, but not every couple will want 10 prints of every picture, or 30 prints of just one picture, or 3 albums of 30 prints, or 10 albums of 6 prints.

Makes sense to me to have a flat fee to attend and capture the event, and then you pay as much as you want on however many images you want to take home from that?

If you negotiate an upfront price with a certain amount of prints/an album package built in, would that be better? Or is that still paying for prints?

One thing that puzzles me in regard to the wedding photos, if the happy couple are paying the photographer to attend and provide the service, why do they then charge again for prints?, it just strikes me as wanting feeding with both hands.

The photogropher takes additional pictures and doesn't just take the 30 pictures you've paid for.

Many still use film for a better picture as well as digital and the film has a direct cost.

The number of people who take it and then make copy after copy of the previews is unreal.

At the end of the day they are paying you for the pictures not your being there.

If you want to pay them for the day and retain the rights (and negatives) then you talk to them and tell them that up front and agree a price.

If you don't agree that price, then it's their copyright.

One thing that puzzles me in regard to the wedding photos, if the happy couple are paying the photographer to attend and provide the service, why do they then charge again for prints?, it just strikes me as wanting feeding with both hands.

I don't. My clients buy a comets service from me which includes a luxury album and 60 pictures (of c.200), thank you cards, etc.

The costs of processing these, designing albums, etc. are all factored in to my fees.

If they want anything above the pre-negotiated deal then I charge extra according to what they want (extra pictures in album are charged a nominal amount to cover time unless additional pages are required in the album). More cards, framed prints, additional prints, all have a cost associated with them.

How much each phototographer charges is based upon their business model and how much they perceive their clients will pay.

A client paying £500 for a photographer at their wedding can't expect to get a 'great' photographer and a decent quality album of amazing pictures that tells the story of their day.

In many cases £500 togs shoot JPG, do little PP, burn 400+ unfiltered pictures to a CD and that's it.

The old moral of 'you get what you pay for' holds true most of the time in this industry (and I accept that there are exceptions at all levels of the industry).

At the end of the day they are paying you for the pictures not your being there.

If all they are paying for are 'pictures' then any 'photographer' with a half decent camera can do that.

Are you suggesting that the time a photographer spends with them is worth nothing?

Are you suggesting that any picture is worth charging for?

If the skilled photographer wasn't at that event / wedding there wouldn't be any pictures.

Have I missed your point?

If all they are paying for are 'pictures' then any 'photographer' with a half decent camera can do that.

Are you suggesting that the time a photographer spends with them is worth nothing?

Are you suggesting that any picture is worth charging for?

If the skilled photographer wasn't at that event / wedding there wouldn't be any pictures.

Have I missed your point?

When we hired a pro to do a family session e did not hire somebody to buy photos from or take pictures of us.

We paid for their "vision", their ability to see us in their "artistic" way. It is difficult to explain but I think KBPhoto knows what I mean

When we bought prints we paid for high quality pictures printed on high quality paper, nicely framed, which will last forever (almost) and will not deteriorate.

I can take quite decent photos, print them on my printer at home up to A1 format and in high quality but this is not the same of course

Right, I've read through the first half of the document you linked and if I'm honest, I don't think it backs up your argument at all.

From what I understand of what you said, you believe that anyone who 'publishes' (a term which you don't define and which is likely to have very woolly boundaries) a work which at the moment would be covered by copyright, but doesn't (or forgets to) add some kind of (again undefined) mark/word/logo/warning then anyone who finds it can take it, copy it, print it, sell it or modify it any way they want.

What I understand from that documents is that firstly it is aimed at businesses, not individuals, and actually seems to focus on clarity of copyright on new technologies which aren't explicitly covered in the current legislation. Understandable (see the comments I made previously about perfumes - they aren't covered as they don't classify as a 'work' under the act, however in some cases judges have afforded the manufacturers protection. Therefore leaving the law in perfume unclear). Things which already have obvious protection don't seem to be an issue in that document, that isn't what they are getting at.

Further to that, nothing in that report even remotely makes the suggestion that automatic protection should no longer happen. It is saying that you can apply for a notice in a similar way to a patent, which the IPO would register. Again, this is very much a business thing, no individual is going to start doing that, nor should they need to. There's nothing mentioned about having to make sure anything published has a notable mark on it.

They go on to say that courts would be under a duty to consider the notice therefore giving further clarity - not that no protection is afforded to those who don't have a notice. One of their options even suggests that courts don't even have a duty to take it into account.

So no, that doesn't back you up I'm afraid.

You completely misunderstood what I was here about not to mention what that proposed article was about. Let's just leave it at that as I first of all can't be bothered any more and secondly I shiver in my boots for the fear of "annoying" anybody any more .

Please don't bother replying.

When we hired a pro to do a family session e did not hire somebody to buy photos from or take pictures of us.

We paid for their "vision", their ability to see us in their "artistic" way. It is difficult to explain but I think KBPhoto knows what I mean

When we bought prints we paid for high quality pictures printed on high quality paper, nicely framed, which will last forever (almost) and will not deteriorate.

I know what you mean. And I agree with you.

Don't forget that the pro has overheads that aren't often considered by the 2nd income shooter: office space, heating, dedicated back up devices, renewing cameras due to increased wear & tear, etc. etc. etc.

I also invest quite heavily every year on additional training to learn new skills and develop existing ones. This has to be factored in to the cost of a wedding (in my case) as it is not just a hobby (I'm very lucky to have a career doing what I love, so it feels line a hobby. One that has to pay the bills.)

If all they are paying for are 'pictures' then any 'photographer' with a half decent camera can do that.

Are you suggesting that the time a photographer spends with them is worth nothing?

Are you suggesting that any picture is worth charging for?

If the skilled photographer wasn't at that event / wedding there wouldn't be any pictures.

Have I missed your point?

Yes you have somewhat, possibly badly put.

I'm saying you don't get paid to turn up the let them do as they like with it all, unless that is agreed. There are skills including knowing what makes a good picture that your mate with a camera just doesn't have.

Hence you have the right to be paid more than just 3 hours, by charging for additional copies.

Edited 24 November, 201213 yr by cheezemonkhai

The determined copier can 'Photoshop' out any water-mark, with a name of a company or something stamped across photo/image.

I however have seen photos where you can see the full image on the computer screen, but when downloaded it's the size of a postage stamp.

Don't know how it's done, but it's worth in your case to have best of both worlds, to have a full image to look at, but only a tiny image if a download is tried.

Even if the postage size image is downloaded and then magnified the pixels break-down quickly and the image becomes just a blur.

You completely misunderstood what I was here about not to mention what that proposed article was about. Let's just leave it at that as I first of all can't be bothered any more and secondly I shiver in my boots for the fear of "annoying" anybody any more .

Please don't bother replying.

Please don't try telling me what to do. If you hadn't made such an ar5ey remark here I wouldn't have replied anyway, as its not like there's much else for you to add to your argument. I had considered it over.

I mentioned Digimarc before. It works by altering noise info within the digital makeup of a photo. It is completely invisible and very hard to remove. It is used for tracking the images in the digital world. I think visible watermarks are more of an advertising method than protection as mentioned above. All in all, as the copyright law stands currently, there is no need to protect it in any way whatsoever as it has an automatic protection excluding any kind of use, pubication or whatever without license being granted or copyrights bought.

As much as it works fine in most cases it also can be extremely dangerous for users and is certainly a gold eggs laying hen for Intellectual Property lawyers.

If you put an image on your website/blog/product for which copyright license was not possible to be obtained you may be in deep trouble. Even putting a link to the source is not helping you. The "cease and desist" notice issued to you is one thing and can be easily obliged with (or license bought) but claim for damages (even unintentional) due to irreversible harm to author's copyrighs and similar nonsense cooked up by lawyers is another thing and then you can shove that applauded cease and desist notice compliance, you will still be sued. To see how perversely twisted this is have a look at the recent lawsuit by J. R.R. Tolkien's Estate against Warner. The license to use Tolkien's work was granted and paid for, all perfect. Yet, lawyers decided they need a bigger X-Mas bonus and advised the Estate to sue Warner for using the imagery "not in the spirit of the granted license" or something to that effect. It was about releasing Hobbit themed slot machines... They are suing for £20 mil

As much as the pros here do enjoy their total copyrights protection as it is I do not personally think it works and the only beneficiaries of the legislation as it stands are Intellectual Property Lawyers feeding on badly written legislation spawning a $hitstorm of nonsense lawsuits - just look at Apple-Samsung IP and patent wars...

Copyrights should be staunchly protected and all original work should be protected, there is no doubt about it! It should be automatic as well as it is now. However some sort of automatic class type public licensing system should be developed to stem the insane influx of nonsense lawsuits fuelled by revenue protecting hordes of unscrupulous lawyers.

Just read about another brilliant example in the latest The Economist.

It was fro the world of fine art. Experts certifying authenticity of paintings/sculptures etc virtually stopped it having been bombarded with lawsuits from disgruntled very rich art collectors when their supposedly original pieces were assessed as fakes. It doesn't matter most of those cases fail. They simply cannot afford $10m lawsuits for $500 expertise service. Again, the only people benefitting from this are lawyers, one international art organisation stopped their renowned expertise service after forced to spend $7m on defending a case brought by some pi$$ed off, bored and disgruntled extremely rich collector who#s artwork was deemed fake - result!

To top it all off I read this week about Microsoft patenting a technology where Xbox Kinect cameras will be able to do a nose count of people watching a movie at home and if more then licensed of present additional charge would be automatically billed. I didn't know myself that only a certain number of people can watch a film at home before the owner finds himself in breach of the copyright license... This is how insane this law in its current form is :(

I don't disagree there are flaws at all. There is with every law, similarly there are people who will try to make claims just for the fun of it (as shown by the current compo culture, which drives me mad btw lol) and of course selfish lawyers who will do any case for a buck.

The only thing I disagreed with from you other posts was when you said that a work published with no watermark should not get auto protected, that was all.

I must have missed your digimarc post, if that could be made to work for everyone then yeah that would be great, with auto protection to back it up.

As for the ridiculous cases, they'll always happen because people will always be greedy. You just have to rely on the judge to make a good decision, like in the baigent case. That was the author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail trying to sue Dan Brown over the Da Vinci Code book as a lot of the info he got was from that book. He'd even used an anagram of baigents name as a character (teabing).

While that was true, the judge decided one was a more 'factual' account whereas the other was a novel, so very deferent. More importantly, sales of HB,HG had increased! So the judge said there was no loss or damage caused.

So while its never going to be perfect you just have to hope most judges have some sense!