Photography and intellectual property, my first brush with this today

Arciphel

I had a funny thing, well two funny things, happen me today.

I found a "professional" (i.e. full time) female wedding photographer on facebook had taken one of my images from flickr and put it up on her wall with some text overlaid to pimp her new website which was coming soon. I reported the image on facebook, not expecting much, less than five hours later they had it taken down. Impressive considering this was my first experience with this kind of thing.

Then this evening I got an e-mail from a guy in Northern Ireland that wanted to use some shots I had taken during the marathon last year. He wanted me to send him the high-res, un-watermarked images by e-mail of two shots he had seen on my flickr, for a new company he was starting up. I told him how much the images would cost for web use, then he replied "I was just looking for you to send me them via email to use as promo shots of Dublin, free of charge. " I was just imaging the replies the guy would have got had he posted his request on here.

It's been an eye-opening day

swingking

Feckin cheap-skates. I'm sure he pays his web developer

Borderfox

Name and shame!!

Arciphel

I wouldn't mid but I take the marathon photos for the Irish Heart Foundation - for free. But this lad wants them for an "adventure sports travel company". I am sure a few other people on Flickr with shots of sports in Dublin might get similar e-mails soon.

Diabhal_Glas

The cheek using your shots, lucky that you managed to find them on facebook. They deserve to be named and shamed, Id like to see the facebook wedding page.
I have seen a photographer of late charging 900 euros for wedding shots and using a 1000d with a kit lens!

pete4130

Ah, I was looking at some freelance work today and somebody was looking for a 2nd shooter at a Sikh wedding on May 30th where they would provide a memory card, pay you £50 and let you choose 20 images for YOUR portfolio (meaning they keep the rest/all for THEIR portfolio?).

I was tempted to apply for the work and put his memory card in my D3's second slot as a low res jpeg version of the RAWs on my main memory card and deliberately have the white balance way off so my RAW's would be ok and his jpegs would have crazy casts on and be un-useable....and then offer the couple my images for free just to teach the main "photographer" a hard lesson in taking other peoples intellectual property......either that or having my 2nd memory card as a backup card with identical RAW copies and format his card before giving it back to him and getting him to pay me per image.....

Granted he was providing the memory card and set out conditions of his offer. It's still taking the p1$$ by my standards. What really got me was he'd let the 2nd shooter "choose" 20 of their images to improve their portfolio. London REALLY p1$$es me off with that sort of thing sometimes.

The amount of ads on sites looking for "interns", students and people looking to improve their connections with unpaid work with opportunities to network and the (unlikely) possibility of a permanent role after working for free for 3 months because they can find another chump to work for free is sickening. It genuinely makes it hard for people serious to get ahead to make any ground.

Victor

pete4130 wrote: »

Ah, I was looking at some freelance work today and somebody was looking for a 2nd shooter at a Sikh wedding on May 30th where they would provide a memory card, pay you £50 and let you choose 20 images for YOUR portfolio (meaning they keep the rest/all for THEIR portfolio?).

You don't own the work if you agree to sell the rights to someone else. May not be fair, but that is the way it works. How do you think couples feel when they ask for a set of negatives for something they feel they have already paid for.

Adriatic

I sent three photographs into a local newspaper of an event that nobody else in the region could possibly have attended and gave relevant information too, hoping I would be credited, they used two and an article on the info I gave and not a notion of my name, I even embedded my info in the photographs.

Oh well I guess it doesn't matter because it's my first time but it is kind of annoying that you must state you want to be credited and they don't give money either. :pac:

pete4130

Victor wrote: »

You don't own the work if you agree to sell the rights to someone else. May not be fair, but that is the way it works. How do you think couples feel when they ask for a set of negatives for something they feel they have already paid for.

It's going back to pre Magnum days when agencies would give photographers the film so they'd own the film, therefore the images on the film.

Couples pay for a photography service, not for negatives/RAW files which belong to the photographer who shot them.......

The situation I described is not so straight forward.

mrboswell

Diabhal_Glas wrote: »

The cheek using your shots, lucky that you managed to find them on facebook. They deserve to be named and shamed, Id like to see the facebook wedding page.
I have seen a photographer of late charging 900 euros for wedding shots and using a 1000d with a kit lens!

I wouldn't expect much.

You gotta admire the neck though!

Heebie

You should, at the very least, write a letter to the editor of the paper expressing your disappointment in their unprofessional conduct.

Adriatic wrote: »

I sent three photographs into a local newspaper of an event that nobody else in the region could possibly have attended and gave relevant information too, hoping I would be credited, they used two and an article on the info I gave and not a notion of my name, I even embedded my info in the photographs.

Oh well I guess it doesn't matter because it's my first time but it is kind of annoying that you must state you want to be credited and they don't give money either. :pac:

melekalikimaka

pete4130 wrote: »

Couples pay for a photography service, not for negatives/RAW files which belong to the photographer who shot them.......

The situation I described is not so straight forward.

yeah it all depends on contract

CabanSail

If they want photo's of the Marathon then they can contact Marathonfoto.com who had the rights to the event, but they will not be free.

Diabhal_Glas wrote: »

I have seen a photographer of late charging 900 euros for wedding shots and using a 1000d with a kit lens!

I know what you are saying here, but I think that most of us agree that it's not the Camera but who is using it which matters more. A good tog with a 1000D & Kit Lens will get better shots than an unskilled person with pro gear.

Saint_Mel

pete4130 wrote: »

Ah, I was looking at some freelance work today and somebody was looking for a 2nd shooter at a Sikh wedding on May 30th where they would provide a memory card, pay you £50 and let you choose 20 images for YOUR portfolio (meaning they keep the rest/all for THEIR portfolio?).

Just take 21 shots on the day! Problem sorted, he/she gets 1 photo and you get £50 and 20 shots for your portfolio