Band steals photographer's work... sound familiar, Rev?[views:2148][posts:13]____________________________________ [Apr 22,2014 3:30pm - Alx_Casket ""] http://petapixel.com/2014/04/21/band-respo...ssible-stealing-photographers-work/ On the one hand, they should have credited the original photographer, especially since they cropped out the watermark. But I don't think that they should have to ask credit to share the photo, or go so far as to pay for the right to post it on their own page. I know this has happened to some show photographers around here. What do you do when this happens, and where do you stand on upholding the intellectual property of your work in the times of social media sharing? |
| ______________________________________ [Apr 22,2014 4:07pm - the_reverend ""] yeah, read that and the band is awful. That reminds me... you never renewed your membership this year. |
| _________________________________ [Apr 22,2014 4:31pm - Snowden ""] I saw that too, and while the band seem like really dumb dudes who handled the situation in the worst possible way, I'm confused about the photographer asking a band for money to use a photograph of them which I'm assuming he didn't have a release for? Or were they dumb enough to sign a photo release and then rip off the picture (seems pretty possible actually)? I say this as someone who doesn't really know anything about photography. |
| ________________________________ [Apr 22,2014 5:11pm - xmikex ""] Why didn't they just compromise on sharing the profits made in that Facebook post. What's 10% of zero? |
| _______________________________ [Apr 23,2014 2:17pm - hlrie ""] Don't need a release. It's owned by the photographer outright. That being said, the band would have been fine had they just talked to the guy in the first place about it. Seemed he only demanded payment when they started acting like douche bags.... But the photographer is the owner of the copyright and is within his rights to demand payment. I just think the whole thing got out of hand when the band started mocking him and being dicks instead of just saying sorry and fixing it. |
| ______________________________________ [Apr 23,2014 9:56pm - the_reverend ""] $55 million |
| __________________________________________ [Apr 24,2014 8:44am - largefreakatzero ""] xmikex said:Why didn't they just compromise on sharing the profits made in that Facebook post. What's 10% of zero? Utilizing RttP math, that would be $18. |
| __________________________________ [Apr 24,2014 12:15pm - Snowden ""] hlrie said:Don't need a release. It's owned by the photographer outright. Huh, I thought that once the photographer used it commercially, he/she needed a release from the subjects. Is that not the case then? I mean, you'd know obviously! I'm just remembering how it was explained to me when I had to sign a boatload of releases for a video project I was in once. |
| ______________________________________ [Apr 24,2014 1:07pm - the_reverend ""] There are odd rules there with photography, live events, etc... the copy rights are owned by the person who snapped the picture. In the photo world, releases are usual reserved for proving the age of the person and when that image is the image that is solely used to prompt (advertise) or something like that. So an image on the cover of a book that is used to sell the book usually requires a release, but the pictures inside the book do not. Live events are a different story since they are public events. A person can not expect privacy in a public event. Though if you cross the line into advertisement with an image, then you would be safer to get a release. With your video releases, they were 100% a CYA move by the people doing the video project so that they don't have to deal with any legal issues. |
| _________________________________ [Apr 24,2014 1:26pm - Snowden ""] the_reverend said:There are odd rules there with photography, live events, etc... the copy rights are owned by the person who snapped the picture. In the photo world, releases are usual reserved for proving the age of the person and when that image is the image that is solely used to prompt (advertise) or something like that. So an image on the cover of a book that is used to sell the book usually requires a release, but the pictures inside the book do not. Does that still apply once the photographer is selling the rights to individual pictures (as opposed to putting them in a book of his/her photographic work)? |
| _________________________________ [Apr 24,2014 3:59pm - Snowden ""] Is the issue that when the article says he gave them the option of "paying to use the picture", he was talking about selling them the copyright (so they could go on not crediting him and putting shitty filters on the picture and stuff), whereas I read it as him offering to commercially license the picture back to them? |
| _______________________________ [Apr 24,2014 4:29pm - hlrie ""] This blog post makes it mostly simple to understand. But commercial, editorial and fine art are all different uses and have different rules but no matter what, the photographer owns copyright unless the sign it away. That never changes. http://www.ishootshows.com/2009/02/26/copyright-and-concert-photography/ |
| _______________________________ [Apr 24,2014 4:31pm - hlrie ""] Also fyi, if anyone removes a watermark, for any reason, they would be liable. Period. It shows intent to alter or steal and the photographer can easily win a case like that. Pro-tip, never remove watermarks, even by cropping. |
| _________________________________ [Apr 24,2014 4:44pm - Snowden ""] Thanks Hilarie, that's helpful! |