Stealing is stealing...

Photographer's copyrights are spoken about alot, but what we often don't discuss is the grey area surrounding the repurposing of photojournalism or documentary photography for commercial sale after the fact - which happens all the time. The commercial exploitation of a person's image and/or likeness is also infringement.

Most photographers who may be 'guilty' of this (in the eyes of those photographed perhaps) are able to hide behind the ambiguity surrounding commercial galleries, and the dual nature of photography as art, but also as commercial work.

People will be guided by their own ethic, which I think is much better than being guided by some hollow institutionalized code of ethics, but it is interesting that some photographers will play the commercial side when there is something to be made, but hide behind art when there is something to lose.
 
http://asmp.org/tutorials/enforcing-your-rights.html

Note the small claims court approach for breach of contract as opposed to copyright. That's another strong incentive to contract.

The DMCA only works on US-hosted websites. It's irrelevant elsewhere.

And as for the economic argument, this is what the ASMP has to say:

"So why not sue? Because taking a case to court can be very expensive, and if you don’t win, you’re out a bundle. And if the value of your work — the market’s dollar value, not the value you feel in your heart and soul — isn’t all that high, the payback via the amount awarded by the court may not be enough to pay off your attorney."

Thanks for the links.
 
ryan26 said:
Photographer's copyrights are spoken about alot, but what we often don't discuss is the grey area surrounding the repurposing of photojournalism or documentary photography for commercial sale after the fact - which happens all the time. The commercial exploitation of a person's image and/or likeness is also infringement.
Click to expand...
I think you may be confusing what you term "commercial sale" with "commercial use" of a photograph. In my juristiction (YMMV):
What is "commercial use" ?

In a photographic context, commercial use does not mean the sale a picture, but rather the use of a person's likeness to endorse some product or service, or to entice others to buy it.
Click to expand...
See:

http://4020.net/words/photorights.php#commuse

...Mike
 
pakeha said:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Some light reading, regulation 17.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6741497/US-chips-away-at-Dotcom

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/201241181246427731.html
Click to expand...


well those two links make it pretty clear that the US is run by it's corporations now and not it's citizens. The courts are a sham due to the audience given to the concept of corporations as individuals and citizens with a whole bunch of other rights never, ever intended for non living entities that are beneficially controlled by the living. The citizens of the US need to take back their courts and their government. These two agencies representing the American people are off track
 
PKR said:
I wonder what they would think of some "new" artist, taking their theme to hart, and stealing their show.. you know, break in and take all the stuff. Or better, storm the gallery with "artists who are in love with their work" and take a very large number of small pieces.

Likely insured for big bucks and would give them even more press. Still, it would be interesting.
Click to expand...

Just ask them ;D
(plus 6 more words for 10)
 
PKR said:
or maybe to make it legal, (what I've done in the past) charge him one dollar for the use. But that's me..
Click to expand...

That's still $300.000 in total. If the point is only to make it legal, you can do without the dollar and just tell him that you're OK with it on this one occasion.

Remember, this is copyright we're talking of, not trademarks; you don't lose it if you don't defend it every single instance.
 
rxmd said:
Here's the Thief of the Day, a 92-year-old WWII veteran, who for the last nine years has been making 300,000 copies of copyrighted movie DVDs and sending them to US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for free: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/nyregion/at-92-movie-bootlegger-is-soldiers-hero.xml

I don't think anyone will go after him though.
Click to expand...

Some exceptional photojournalism in the story. More than text ever could, the man's patriotism, personal motivation, and technical acumen are all displayed perfectly.
 
PKR said:
correct.. a common practice in US contract law. Minimum exchange of funds for service or goods for contract purposes.. but an exchange.
Click to expand...

This is known in the law as nominal consideration; an actual exchange of value supposedly to make a contract binding. Its usefulness in the law is questionable and may not be substantial enough depending on jurisdictional case law.
 
PKR said:
What kind of value needs to be put on this kind of thing to make it "more legal" without putting hardship on the other half of the contract.

I've found that when assigning free use, the work will leave the control of the recipient if there isn't something "that looks binding" in writing. I want to be able to help folks without the image getting "lost", printed and sold under someone elses name on ebay..
Click to expand...

Some jurists believe that nominal consideration is a sham. That's all. I would not count on it to properly contract for copyright distribution, especially globally. It may be one clause to demonstrate diligence rather than THE clause to bind. I posit it is antiquated. YMMV

Another way to facilitate exchange is to contract demand a copy of the final product you assign your image towards. This may have more demonstrable value and be more applicable rather than a fictional dollar bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom