|
|
Post by ARU on Jun 14, 2012 22:56:22 GMT 12
Apologies if this topic has already been discussed
A photo I posted on this forum approx 4 years ago has turned up on a airline website.
my question is I understand that by posting photos I am allowing them to be viewed and copied in a public domain... fair game..
but does any company have any right to use my photo on its commercial website without my prior (verbal/written) consent.
I didn't put my name and copyright over the top as i had only started taking photos as a hobby, and didn't really think about this....
But as my understanding of the copy right law is that I do not have too (even thought it is a good practise), for it still to be my copyright as i am the photographer
I still have the full resolution jpg and RAW copy as well as 4 other photos taken as a take off roll, so I can prove its my photo.
I'm not after material gain but would like a credit and maybe a free joyride would be nice sentiment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ykato on Jun 14, 2012 23:00:56 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 15, 2012 10:39:27 GMT 12
It seems wrong to me Alex. They should have sought permission. It's not hard to do, if they couldn't contact you they can contact me and ask for a message to be passed on.
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Jun 15, 2012 11:06:47 GMT 12
While they should have sought your permission, remember that the company may not have taken the image directly from WONZ, someone else may have copied it, and then claimed it was in the public domain or whatever (e.g. as used in a youtube collage recently...).
So it may be an innocent error on the part of the company. Therefore I would start by asking politely, and escalate as required.
|
|
|
|
Post by Luther Moore on Jun 15, 2012 15:09:50 GMT 12
Have you posted your photo in any facebook groups,pages or anywhere? Once you put something on facebook they own it.A girl called up the radio station I was listening to and she was saying how facebook sold a photo of her to a porn site.
|
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Jun 15, 2012 15:55:26 GMT 12
Hi Alex, putting it simply, you have copyright over the image as the taker of the picture, but that doesn't stop companies from publishing the image. You can object to this if they steal it without your permission, which they shouldn't do. You have to be identified as the taker of the picture before they can publish it, even if you give permission, but it is up to you to enforce it. This applies to magazines, newspapers etc, but not to the internet. No one is allowed to publish your images without your express permission.
The easy way to stop people from publishing outside the internet, if the image has been posted on the net is to reduce the image's resolution to such a level that it cannot be reproduced in normal media. On the internet this doesn't work because people can and will publish low quality images. Water marks are an easy way to get round this, but these spoil the image - as they are supposed to do.
Regarding facebook and other internet media, if you took the picture you still have the 'moral' right to be identified as the taker or the owner, regardless of who owns copyright, therefore you can successfully object to it being used.
Threaten a lawsuit - get a solicitor to write a letter; will cost, but worth the piece of mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 15, 2012 18:09:29 GMT 12
Don't you mean peace of mind?  |
|
|
|
Post by ARU on Jun 15, 2012 21:30:06 GMT 12
So it may be an innocent error on the part of the company. Therefore I would start by asking politely, and escalate as required. Thanks for the info everybody... The particular photo has only ever been posted on our forum by me, i dont know if it has "travelled" after that. I will pursue the above quote at this stage, I am more than happy for them to use my photo on their site but I would like the credit. Photography has always been a hobby for me not a profession.... but I'm beginning to wonder  |
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Jun 16, 2012 14:15:15 GMT 12
Yeah, I guess so, but a "piece" of mind is often more rewarding! |
|
|
|
Post by ARU on Jun 19, 2012 16:50:33 GMT 12
I've drafted and sent my email, will announce the outcome and particulars when I have a resolution.. thanks again for the advice everybody
|
|
|
|
Post by fwx on Jun 20, 2012 10:16:36 GMT 12
I agree on the polite approach, but in my 12 years of web design have twice been on the other end of very aggressive threats over the inadvertent use of copyrighted images.
Both were withdrawn after the offending images were removed, but in one case even then the "offended party", a large corporate via an IP lawyer, continued to bluster on for several months afterwards about damages in the order of US$10,000!
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jun 22, 2012 22:01:18 GMT 12
There does seem to be rather odd attitudes out there towards image reproduction.
In the course of my overseas travels I have taken a few photos of indigenous aircraft. Unfortunately, some time after I photographed it, one of these aircraft came to a messy end.
As you would expect, the civil aviation authorities of the relevant Government are conducting an investigation into the causes of this accident.
A few days ago I received this email (identities removed to protect the guilty):
"Hi Peter,
I obtained your email address via the ‘Wings over New Zealand’ forum and am writing to you in connection with an image you uploaded to the forum of xxxx (attached). The xxxx is conducting an investigation of a fatal accident, involving xxxx, that occurred on xxxxx.
<snip>
I am seeking your approval to use the attached image in the investigation report, with the appropriate acknowledgement. Could you please advise if you are happy, or otherwise, for the xxxxx to use the image (and/or, any other images you have of xxxxxx)?
If you are happy for the xxxxx to use the image, could I request that you forward me a high resolution copy of the photograph?
Thank you in anticipation.
Cheers
xxxxx"
Now while I am perfectly happy for private individuals with an interest, enthusiast groups and non-profit-orientated amateurs to use my photos without any expectation of payment, I do think that magazines, books and those operating in the commercial sector should pay for the resources that they use.
So I responded:
"Good afternoon,
I can confirm that the photo of xxxx is available.
The one you have seen is the only angle I have of this particular aircraft.
The original is taken in high-res Canon RAW digital format, and is 3504px x 2336px
Non-exclusive use and copyright release is available for you at a charge of NZD100.00
If you wish to proceed, please advise what size you require, and I will reduce down to that size from the original for you.
Regards, Peter Lewis"
Note we are talking here of the results of a fairly expensive overseas trip and a photograph taken with a few thousand dollars worth of camera equipment, so after a few days of silence I was rather surprised to get this response:
"Hi Peter,
Apologies for my delayed reply, we have never been asked to pay for images before so I had to check up on that.
I have been instructed to enquire whether you would accept $50 NZD for the image and appropriate acknowledgement in the public report? If so, I would need an invoice for the photo and the preference would be that you provide bank details to facilitate electronic payment. Alternatively I can pay via credit card. We would require the image to be about 2500 px wide.
Thanks for your help Peter and I will await your response.
Cheers
xxxx"
Of course there will be other people involved in the investigation and analysis that will appear in the final report. I can think of transport operators to recover the wreckage, Engineers to strip down the airframe and the engine and Pathologists to study the remains of the crew. Skilled accident investigators will assemble their finding into a report that will then be printed and distributed. All these people will be paid and paid well for their time and effort. The investigating body itself is a government department with all that entails - a budget in the millions of dollars, expensive offices, well paid staff and hefty expense accounts.
Why should there be the expectation that the photographer is the one person who contributes free of charge?
|
|
|
|
Post by sqwark2k on Jun 23, 2012 9:53:18 GMT 12
Or you could feel that you are assisting an investigation into a fatal accident of which the report may benefit flight safety in the future. Did you take the image with the express intention of making $$$ from it or was it your hobby and got personal satisfaction from the outcome? A bit OTT for an image that will probably be on the cover page to make the report look a bit more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jun 24, 2012 20:02:35 GMT 12
You do have a valid point there squark, and one that I accept.
I think that it is one of context.
If the approach was from someone who had been involved with the aircraft who wanted a memento, or from relatives who wanted to create a memorial to their deceased family member, there would be no question. They could gladly have a copy without any charge.
I have often supplied photos to those who flew a particular aircraft during their careers, or who are creating family histories. I have also contributed photos (and words) to aero club newsletters, online blogs and aviation historical groups. Where such organizations are amateur, not-for-profit and run by volunteers, no charge no problem. I'm glad to help.
Similarly I have had photos published in commercial magazines. These publications, when you boil it down, are produced by the publishers as a profit-seeking exercise. They have expected to pay me, have done so, and I would expect no less. As ARU has had his photo used by a commercial firm, my view is that he should be paid for the use of that photo.
(As an aside for those who are sharpening their quills, I have never accepted any payment for any photo that has not been taken personally by me).
Of course I am aware of the market for photographs. When I am wielding my camera I am conscious of the potential to sell the resultant photograph. I would love to sell more. However, I do not think that intention is a relevant factor. If you happen to buy a painting at a garage sale for $2.50 because you quite like it and it fits into the decor of your house, and several years later some expert points out that the painting is a genuine Goldie worth a gazilion dollars, do you say 'No, no, I bought it with the intention of hanging it in the hall at home and I won't sell it for anything more that $2.50?" I think not.
The point that I am pondering is that no-one in this accident investigation is carrying out the work for the goodness of humanity and charity. All are getting paid. Even the printer.They are saying to me "Give" and are being paid to say that. It irks.
|
|
|
|
Post by chinapilot on Jun 25, 2012 2:40:16 GMT 12
Another point of view is that the aircraft owner provides the aircraft 'free of charge' so someone can then take a photo and sell or 'copyright' the image...
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Jun 25, 2012 8:07:16 GMT 12
Another point of view is that the aircraft owner provides the aircraft 'free of charge' so someone can then take a photo and sell or 'copyright' the image... Which is reflected in most people's attitude towards giving photos to pilots/owners (especially now that the marginal cost of a 'print' is purely time). Photography in public would be impractical if those photographed there (or their possessions) had veto over use of photographs. It's bad enough how the film industry treats use of identifiable brands in movies, without laws to back up the practice. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jun 25, 2012 22:26:20 GMT 12
A photograph taken in a public place may be used without restriction by the photographer.
I recollect a court case some years ago.
As I remember it, a press photographer spotted a TV 'personality' walking down the street accompanied by spouse and newly-arrived child. He photographed the trio.
The personality took him to court to try and prevent him from selling and/or publishing the photographs, motivated largely by the fact that exclusive photographic coverage of the happy family had been sold to one of the women's mags for a substantial sum.
After considerable legal argument, the judge ruled for the photographer on the basis that that anyone can photograph anything or anyone in a public place and deal with the resultant photos in any way they chose. If someone takes a photo of a street and you car happens to be in that street at that time, you do not have the power to impose any restrictions on that photograph.
|
|
|
|
Post by ARU on Jul 5, 2012 18:38:00 GMT 12
I will now reveal that it was Fly My Sky in breach, on their schedule services page.
Well I was beginning to lose hope of a peaceful resolution, and it was my plan to go see them at Auckland domestic airport tomorrow after work to kick over a few rocks.
I double checked their website and hello!!!! there is my photo credit, checked my emails and I'm going to get my free joyride after all ;D ;D ...
so very pleased with the outcome.
considering the size of the airline I think its a fair outcome
thanks for the advice everybody
|
|
|
|
Post by slackie on Jul 7, 2012 16:50:32 GMT 12
Yeah... nice resolution... "ups" to all involved
|
|
|
|
Post by ARU on Aug 8, 2012 23:17:17 GMT 12
|
|
