copyright laws

[Jim Conway]

No flames from here - but an attempt at clarity if you truly do not understand what this involves.

Another way of looking at is that it involves selling only certain well established "rights". A photographer, musician or any other artist depends on reprints and/ or reproduction sales and seldom releases that right. That is why we OWN and keep our negatives! Why do you assume "overcharge" and "screwing" without knowing what the photographer would have charged for the reprint or what his or her cost of doing business involves?

It's a given that you can make a copy cheaper if you do not have to support the creation of originals, however in turn, you also end the incentive for anyone going to the expense of making an original of any kind. In the extreme, even without lawsuits, sooner or later the copy houses would get beat by the game because no one will climb the mountain to get the picture you want to own without going out of the house.

To consider "portraits" undeserving of that protection is to prejudge the merit of a specific photo and declare it somehow worth less than any other photograph taken by a professional. Sorry but that isn't your call, that is why there are specific decisions in the law on who owns what rights. The case in point, the reproduction rights BELONG to the photographer unless he or she specificly releases them.

No one would argue that any customer who did indeed buy and pay for ALL rights to reproduction including the negatives should and would have all the privileges you want them to have.

The copyright laws are being strengthened again this year so going in an opposite direction from what you indicate you would like to see I'm afraid - ask Napster!

I don't know if this helps in any general understanding or not - in any event it's probably more than enough said by me! I rest my case! :-)

Jim Conway

[chiquitita]

Jim Conway [/b][/quote]

Another way of looking at is that it involves selling only certain well established "rights". A photographer, musician or any other artist depends on reprints and/ or reproduction sales and seldom releases that right. That is why we OWN and keep our negatives! Why do you assume "overcharge" and "screwing" without knowing what the photographer would have charged for the reprint or what his or her cost of doing business involves?

I don't assume overcharging - I see it. If you would include the necessary cost in taking the photo, then you wouldn't have to cling on to the negatives and force the person to return to you for copies. The cost for you to make a copy of a photo is not what is charged by these photographers (the ones who participate in this practice).

To consider "portraits" undeserving of that protection is to prejudge the merit of a specific photo and declare it somehow worth less than any other photograph taken by a professional. Sorry but that isn't your call, that is why there are specific decisions in the law on who owns what rights. The case in point, the reproduction rights BELONG to the photographer unless he or she specificly releases them.

If I pay someone to take a photo of me, I consider it mine, unless I am doing it as a model for them. It is my image in the photo, and I paid for the service so why shouldn't it be mine? It isn't a matter of being undeserving as much as it is a matter of being different than other types of art. If someone purchases a restoration from me, I don't hold on to their original file, forcing them to come back to me for reprints - they bought the service - they should be able to have the photo so they can have it for their archive long after I am gone.

The copyright laws are being strengthened again this year so going in an opposite direction from what you indicate you would like to see I'm afraid - ask Napster!

Well the law might say that the photographer owns the copyright - but what I am saying is that I see more and more photographers who are willing to give the clients everything related to their order (negatives, etc.) and also people who are looking for that willingness in a photographer.

I don't know if this helps in any general understanding or not - in any event it's probably more than enough said by me! I rest my case! :-)

Well actually I understand very well being an artist, however I just find this practice to be rediculous when it comes to portraits taken of families, weddings, etc. I don't like having a stranglehold on my clients.

[Jakaleena]

Here are a few points to consider regarding the sale of the rights vs. the sale of individual copies of the image:

1. Photographers have overhead - education, equipment, building rent/mortgage, insurance, equipment maintenance, depreciation & upgrades, lab/printing fees, payroll, etc. All of this is figured into the cost of the product. I don't know of any business that sells their product at cost - there'd be no point in that.

2. If the photographer charged for rights instead of individual copies of prints, they would have to figure in what potential future sales might have been. The cost of the rights might be figured at, just as an example, say $500. In order to do as you say, the sitting fee and a package of prints would cost $500 as opposed to buying whatever quantity of prints you wanted ala carte for much less per print.

3. I think most photographers would be willing to consider selling the rights to an image for a cost equivalent to the potential future sales, based on the average sales per image of their work. Most people don't want to pay that kind of money. Would you be more willing to go to a photographer who charged $500 up front for everything and you get the negatives, or would you rather go to a photographer who charged a $50 sitting fee plus the cost of whatever prints you want?

4. Copies of prints are not standardized in quality. One place may do a fantastic job of copying while another's copy looks atrocious. A photographer's prints are also an advertisement for their business. If you have a horrible copy made, or even just one that doesn't live up to that photographer's standards, and then you show it to your friends and family, you have taken the ability to control the quality of their product away from the photographer. If your family and friends feel that it is an awful print, they will likely not consider that it was a horrible copy, they will more likely believe instead that the photographer was a horrible photographer.

5. Copyright laws exist to protect the ability of the photographer or artist to make a living. They exist because of the type of thinking you mention, which is a fairly common way of thinking among people in general. When you purchase a photograph, you have purchased a copy of the product of someone's hard work, talent and expense, not an unlimited supply of copies that they will receive no compensation for. What if we were talking about a furniture factory instead of a photographer? Would the purchase of a single unique piece of furniture entitle you to as many exact copies of that piece of furniture as you wanted at no additional cost?

6. It may not be popular, or even well understood, but copyright protection is the law. The unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material is theft.

I can see it if you take art photos or landscape photos for artwork purposes which you sell at an art show or in a gallery. If you are taking a shot of a person - charge them for the service what you wish - and then they should have the right to reproduce that photo that THEY have purchased for their own personal use.

Didn't they purchase the art/landscape photo for their personal use as well? Shouldn't they have the right to reproduce the print THEY have purchased? What makes the artist's work more valuable and worthy of protection than the portrait photographer's?

[Jim Conway]

" then you wouldn't have to cling on to the negatives and force the person to return to you for copies."

Wow does that ever conjure up a cruel and unusual punishment image! Really, most of us that copyright our work are not vultures, we just like to be among the survivors. We spend good money to preserve our negatives and seldom "force" anyone to buy from us.

Getting down to technicalities, do you know the artist has the right to tell you how you can or cannot display their work? Now there is a real stopper!

There is another thread you might like to look into on this topic. In it I covered a lawsuit that I was involved in (13 portraits used by a shopping center for their own promotion) and also the fact that copying old family photos is not likely to get you in trouble simply because of the costs involved in taking up any legal action.

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/sho...&threadid=2052

So I guess it's your call to copy what ever you want to copy but regardless of your opinion on fair or unfair, if someone does decide to go after you for a violation, be prepared to pay an attorney upwards of $7K to defend you and upwards of $30K if you lose.

Jim Conway

[Mike]

May I add a few comments from the viewpoint of a portrait studio owner?

Some time ago (long before I entered the profession) the business model for portrait studios was to charge a low sitting fee, coupled with a high charge for the prints. If customers did not buy a good number of prints, then the studio lost money on the deal. That became the norm and anyone who tried to change it was soon out of business as customers would not pay a high sitting fee if the other studio down the street charged a low sitting fee.

It was not a good way to do business, and did not make a lot of sense to most photographers. After all the work and skills are in doing the sitting, and that is what the photographer should be charging for and the customer paying for. Spending $50.00 for 2 or 3 hours of time and equipment usage is quite a bargin for the customer. But paying $50.00 or more for an 8x10 print is equally wrong in the other direction.

We were really looking at this when the digital stuff hit us. At my studio we implimented a complete change over of our business model when we changed from film to digital. We now charge up to several hundred $'s for the sitting fee, but our 8x10's are $15.00. Our idea is that the customer should pay for the work we do. If they want a long session, they can buy it, if they want a lot of computer enhancment, they can buy it, so when we get done with all that and they only want 1-8x10 print of all that time and work, they can buy it. When we get done I have been fairly compensated for my time and skills, and the customer has in their hand what they want.

But there are some problems with all this. Jakaleena's paragraph #4 explains quite well what I consider the worst problem. We have already had this happen to us and we really do not have any kind of practical answer other than going the copyright route and limiting the customers to only buying reprints from us. And if you think the quaility varies at commercial places, wait to you see what customers can do with a cheap scanner and injet printer in their home

Anyway, I hope that this adds to the thread, and I would invite anyone else to post their comments....

Mike

[chiquitita]

Mike describes what my thoughts are on the "how to".

The point is this - 10 years later and 5 states away, why should I have to try and locate the original photographer - who may or may not be around and who may or may not still have the negs - to get a copy of a photo of ME? The picture is of me - nobody is going to sell it as artwork - or at least they shouldn't be doing that - it is not a modeling job I did - there should be no reason that I should have to continue to pay for something I already paid for. I understand that there are costs involved in having a studio, but I also know there are other ways of making that money than keeping a hold on your clients like that. You can argue with me if you'd like, but it just isn't the way I do business. I find it less than honest. Especially since many people really don't understand this going in - they assume that when they buy something - it's theirs.

[cinderella]

JimI tried to go to the thread you mentioned

is another thread you might like to look into on this topic. In it I covered a lawsuit that I was involved in (13 portraits used by a shopping center for their own promotion) and also the fact that copying old family photos is not likely to get you in trouble simply because of the costs involved in taking up any legal action.

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/sh...=&threadid=2052

but it no longer exists.


Chiquita, I agree with you.


Jak, Thanks for illluminating me about WM policies. I did get the 1932 wedding photo printed after I signed a release (provided by WM). But they would not sell me the prints of the photo with the background which I would guess was taken in the 80's. It has no identifying marks on it. You can see it at this thread > (Don't know how to point you at it) In fact you gave me some help with it. A totally red photo. "Removing Red Cast" in "Help Requested " forum . I am not getting paid to do this for a friend.

I have learned so much about retouching and restoring photos from RP and was going to tackle my wedding photos (33 years old) and a family photo taken about 1980 (as soon as I get better at colorizing) but now I don't know if I'll bother as I won't know where to get them printed.

Jak, Where do you print the photos you restore and retouch.?

Many of you sound like professionals. Is there a place on this forum where there is a list of people who do retouching . And their fee schedule????

Jak, Does this mean WM really only wants to print recent photos out of digi cams with their Fuji equipment????

Still think WM needs to post some very large signs explaining this. So a person like me won't feel like I've been accused of stealing or shoplifting or some such thing.

[Jakaleena]

Jak, Does this mean WM really only wants to print recent photos out of digi cams with their Fuji equipment????

No, most of the prints we copy are family snapshots (the Fuji DPC and the Kodak Picture Maker both have scanners), while the next largest number of prints are from digital sources. There are a huge number of people (genealogists, scrap bookers) who make copies of other things besides studio prints.

I have my stuff printed at work, but if it is a professional photograph I either track down a release or ask the client to provide a release. The PPA is a good resource for information on obtaining releases. If you have an idea of aproximately what year the photograph was taken and aproximately what area it was taken in, they can do quite a lot to help track down the photographer or their heirs. Failing that, they may have some good advice for you on getting your restoration work printed. I always refer the people who's photos we decline to print because of copyright issues to the PPA. The phone number is 1-800-786-6277.

Also,
HERE is a really good .pdf document on copyright with some forms you might find useful.

[cinderella]

"Also,
HERE is a really good .pdf document on copyright with some forms you might find useful

Jak, Thanks for that helpful link.

With a page from that in hand I hope I can get my photos printed.
I will call the 800 # to see if PPA can track down my wedding photographer who does not appear in yellow pages.

I am now among the enlightened.

GO SPURS

[Ed_L]

I haven't been around for a couple of days, so I didn't have the chance to reply before. It is my opinion (and also the law) that professionally made portraits deserve to be protected by copyright law just as much as the work of an artist who paints beautiful landscapes. Most people who take professional photography courses in portraiture don't make it in a business of their own. There is more than one reason for this. The work is not over as soon as the shutter is snapped....that's for sure. A successful portrait business requires long working hours, equipment, and the ability to produce a portrait that evokes a certain feeling from the viewer. I think Jak was right on the money when she suggested that a poorly made reprint or copy could have a negative effect on the photographer. This negative effect is something that not many portrait photographers would want to contend with. That's money out of their pockets, not because of lost profit from the reprints, but because of business lost through poorly made copies. If it were so easy to make beautiful portraits, nobody would need a professional portriat photographer to begin with. These people learned their craft well, and they have mouths to feed just like the rest of us.

Even though I feel the way I do about the subject, I do understand why some people feel differently than I do. That's the reason we need laws.

Chiquitita does bring up some good points. If I had to make a restoration of an old portrait for someone, and I tried to find the holder of the copyright, and failed, I would get something in writing from the customer that would take me off the hook. Then I would do the restoration, and be able to sleep at night, thinking I did the ethical thing. I tried to get the proper release.

Ed

[chiquitita]

I will just say one last thing, in case I wasn't clear on this.

I don't mind that someone would want to hold onto a copyright for things that could be reproduced for commercial purposes - however, I think that if John Doe gets a print done of his family and 7 years later when the kids are grown and they want copies of that pic for their own homes, they should be able to go and get copies of the pic made without a hassle from anyone.

Now, if the picture was a really adorable photo of a baby done Anne Geddes style and John Doe wanted to sell it to a greeting card company - then I agree that would be a problem because he is trying to make a profit off of someone else's work.

[KevinBE]

I know I am a little late on this one but I wanted to chime in. My policy is that if the picture is an old professional portrait and every attempt to discover who the photographer is fails then I get a signed release from the picture owner and proceed with the restore. I am assuming that this resolves me from any liability.

Now I have been asked to re-print fairly new portraits that have no copyright imprint I have to refuse the work. For some reason Sears and a couple of local studios do not put their copyright signature on their work. I can't imagine why they don't sign their work, it makes my job harder. Customers don't understand the copyright laws. I make it a point to put my signature on any of my original work that goes on display. I think that that should be part of the law, photographers should always sign their work.

[LactoBeeZor]

This thread is interesting in the fact that I do agree with both sides. But the major question I had was; "How do you guys/gals do restoration projects?" If someone wanted a photo of theirs restored how do you go about it if it was studio aquired so many years ago.
Please PM me and I will send my email because I do want to see a sample of a release statement and or a policy how this should be done legally.

Thanks;

[cinderella]

The following, excerpted from Jakaleena's reply earlier in this thread answered your question, at least I believe it did if I understand all this copyright stuff correctly.

" if it is a professional photograph I either track down a release or ask the client to provide a release. The PPA is a good resource for information on obtaining releases. If you have an idea of aproximately what year the photograph was taken and aproximately what area it was taken in, they can do quite a lot to help track down the photographer or their heirs. Failing that, they may have some good advice for you on getting your restoration work printed. I always refer the people who's photos we decline to print because of copyright issues to the PPA. The phone number is 1-800-786-6277.

Also,
HERE is a really good .pdf document on copyright with some forms you might find useful"
Above Posted by JAK on this thread 6/14/03

If anyone knows of a better release form please share the source.
"

[cinderella]

Jak,
If the owner of the red photo I restored,retouched fills out page 6 of the PMA document , checking the boxes to indicate she does not know the photographer of this church directory photo taken about 1977, will WM accept this release??? Or should I look for somewhere else that will accept it. If you do not wish to discuss this on the air please PM me.

Also , what is "fair use" (the third box)