my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Copyright violation & the financial damage it can do (Page 1)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Copyright violation & the financial damage it can do Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-20-2003 02:11 PM                        I hope Brad will allow me to address the serious damage copyright violation can do to filmakers, photographers and everyone who had gone to the trouble of having products or inventions copyrighted. As a professional portrait and wedding photographer, I would like to bring to your attention the tremendous loss of revenue I have suffered because of copyright violations. Before photo labs started to offer no questions asked photo copy service and the availability of excellent home computer scanners at reasonable prices, I used to get very nice orders from my portrait and wedding customers. There was a time when almost all of my clients would order images in different sizes. Today, the majority oder only one print usually an 8X10 or 5X7 and I know exactly what their intentions are because I have actually seen some images of mine that were scanned at home and given to their friends who I also knew who were kind enough to tell me that they received an image of mine that was scanned. People seem to have the attitude that once they buy a photograph, DVD, VHS tape, or any copyrighted work, they now own it. Yes, the original blank paper, disc, tape and the other raw material belongs to the consumer but NOT the creative content on the blank paper, disc, tape and other raw material! The Professional Photographers of America, an organization I had been a member for almost forty years has been very successful in their litigation against companies like Kinko and others who used to reproduce photographs without permission but almost all of them are now refraining from making copies of photographs without our authorization. I know many computer hackers have found a way to reproduce DVDS that is protected by region codes and Macrovision but I have never even bothered to learn how to do it because I have absolutely no intention of doing it. If I want a DVD bad enough, I will go out and buy a copy. If a favorite movie I had enjoyed in a theatre is not (yet) available on DVD, I just live with it and hope the day will come soon when I can buy a ligitimate copy -Claude  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-20-2003 03:09 PM                     Something to remember -- Nobody has a RIGHT to see my movie. If I don't want the people in (whatever country) to see my movie then that's my choice. It doesn't forfeit MY RIGHT as copyright holder to pursue that market at a later time of my choosing -- which might be never! If there are political or legal issues in a certain country that stand in the way of an individual's freedom then those issues should be addressed directly. If it's hard to get American movies where you are then solve the real problem (censorship or whatever) instead of merely dealing with the symptom. Bootlegging movies will not solve the real problem and -- even if it did -- that doesn't make it legal, ethical or moral. It doesn't make it right. Brad, I swear: not another word from me on this.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 04-20-2003 03:26 PM                        quote: There was a time when almost all of my clients would order images in different sizes. Today, the majority oder only one print usually an 8X10 or 5X7 and I know exactly what their intentions are because I have actually seen some images of mine that were scanned at home and given to their friends who I also knew who were kind enough to tell me that they received an image of mine that was scanned. The issue here is what you are selling your client when you sign an agreement or contract with them. Certainly if you are simply providing copies of the photographs, not the copyright to them, then anyone scanning and copying them is commiting an offence (whether in civil law, criminal law or both depends on the country). But in many cases, if you commission a photograph, film or video from a third party and pay them for it, the expectation is that you are buying the copyright as well as the physical copy. Indeed the European Copyright Directive (and our our own Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 - for more detail, see Pascal Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union, Cambridge University Press, 2002) enshrines the principle that the first owner of copyright is the individual or organisation which paid for the production, unless an agreement explicitly states otherwise. Personally, if I were commissioning photographs of my own wedding, I would want to purchase the copyright too, so that I could legally copy and distribute them to whoever I liked. Assuming that they were originated on film, I would also want to buy the camera negative. If a professional photographer was not willing to sell me the IPR, I would simply go to someone else. This is not the same situation as a commercial feature film, which is initiated, produced and distributed by the entertainment industry. Unlike advertisements, promos, industrial films and even wedding photographs, they are not made to commission. The copyright issues are thus, IMHO, rather different.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-20-2003 04:04 PM                     Portrait theft is a growing problem. Being a computer graphics artist, I get hit up by people wanting me to scan, color correct and make prints from school photos just so they won't have to pay what they feel are the high prices for photography. Aside from telling about Copyright Law and theft of intellectual property, I advise them that it is CHEAPER for them to just buy the damned prints. I don't work for free (hourly rates range from $30 to $50). Materials are not free either. Photo quality paper and printer ink gets expensive. When all of that is factored in most any cheapskate with a brain will figure out that it is better just to do the right thing. Of course that doesn't stop the folks who want to scan and print the photos on their own. But without items like the original negatives, a higher quality scanner and good color correction knowledge, the cheapie people end up wasting many hours of their time only to wind up with bad looking copies --all just to save a few bucks. Don't they think their own time and labor is worth anything? Of course, that's the big thing with all creative arts. Many customers don't feel like the time and labor invested is worth anything. So they don't want to pay for it. Perhaps if they did their own damned job for no pay then they might pull their collective heads out of their asses . Many people don't consider photographs intellectual property since they're not quite the same as a painting or drawing created by hand. So they don't have any qualms about lifting a picture or using it inappropriately. They don't consider the photographer's investment in extrememly expensive equipment, the price he must pay for getting the photos (such as travel costs to locations, time invested, model fees, etc.), costs of development, print making, high quality drum scanning, data archiving, etc. People choke at the $400 price of a stock photo disc, but that's really a bargain (provided any of the pictures can actually fit your needs and haven't been used to death in other publications). Stock photos have the same limitations as other types of clip art. Very often for many ad projects, you just have to pay the money to hire a photographers, illustrators and graphic designers. Well, that's if you want to do the job right and not get shown up by your competitors.  |  IP: Logged Hugh McCullough Expert Film Handler Posts: 147 From: Old Coulsdon, Surrey, UK Registered: Jan 2003 posted 04-20-2003 04:53 PM                        Copying, by any means, a photograph taken by someone else without their permission is stealing. I understood that the copyright of a photograph belonged to the author i.e the person who took the photograph, and not the subject of the picture. Any professional photographer who sells his negatives is a rare person as he would be losing revenue on reprints. Remember that reprints are a very important source of income for a wedding & portrait photograph  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-20-2003 05:22 PM                        In the US, wedding photographs would typically be considered a "work made for hire"--i.e. the photographer was paid by someone specifically to take the photographs. In the absence of any contract or other agreement to the contrary, the person who hired the photographer would own the copyright on the pictures (not necessarily the negatives or slides, but the copyright to them). I don't really know how this works in practice, but I would assume that Claude and other wedding photographers would include something in their contract that states something like "photographer retains copyright ownership." Presumably this is because reprints are profitable for the photographer and charging for them allows the photographer to charge less to do the initial wedding shoot. If that is the case, then any unauthorized reproduction outside of that which is allowed by the "fair use" provisions of the copyright laws (which are becoming more and more narrowly defined) would constitute theft. [No, I'm not a lawyer, but I have spent a bit of time learning about copyright laws in general.] Bobby makes a good point that people who try to copy photographs by scanning them or re-photographing existing prints are really just wasting their time, when they could simply pay about the same or maybe slightly more to have the original photographer make top-quality prints from original negatives or slides.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-20-2003 06:16 PM                        Scott, I am very sorry to have to differ with you but you are wrong! What exactly is the difference between someone retaining me to create a portrait for them or to photograph their wedding? In both cases, I am being hired to provide photographic services and deliver either a mounted/Framed portrait or a finished wedding album. The cilent only paid for the time spent executing the assignment and images of themselves for their personal use. All reproduction rights and full ownership of the images on a film base or digital file are retained by me. This is stipulated in the copyright laws of the United States and is the reason Kinko or any other similar establishments cannot reproduce my images without permission. Kinko's and many others have used exactly the same logic has you in litigations initiated by the Professional Photographers of America and have always lost. I have had no problem legally protecting my images from being reproduced without permission in recent years. It is the home computer scanner that is causing all the problem now and sadly there is not much we photographers can do about it. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-20-2003 07:35 PM                     I have noticed where the folks at Office Max and Office Depot retail outlets will not reproduce anything that has a copyright affixed to it. It depended on the clerk that was taking your order. Some would, and some won't. Point in question once for me was I needed a schematic reproduction of an old transmitter. The book for that thing was out-of-print, and no manuals existed anywhere. The schematic was like a "tattered and torn rag" because it was so old after so many years of use. I took it back to the station, xeroxed it by panels, and ran the panels (there were about 12 of them) through my scanner and made one humongus bitmap. After about 20 hours if work with Paintbrush, it was completely done. I copied it to a floppy as a mono bitmap (almost 1.44 megs worth) and took it down to Office Max. They stuffed the floppy into their computer, and several minutes later I had a nice big schematic of 48 inches in width and about 26 inches high. So, I guess there is more than one way to skin a cat.... Normally, I don't believe in doing things like that, but in this instance, I really did not have much of a choice. And yes, I think Claude should include something in his contract so he has some options he can employ if someone does steal his works. I do believe in copyrights. Some time ago, Josh's dad sent me a picture of a tornado he took. Very nice picture. But I still asked Josh's dad for permission to send it to some friends of mine. Permission was granted for me to do so. It is a case of honor and respect towards the author as far as I am concerned.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-20-2003 08:38 PM                        Paul, I do have a formal contract for wedding photography and all images I deliver also includes a printed literature that states that I appreciate the business and it is still possible to reorder additional pictures. The note also reminds my customers that all of my images are copyrighted and are not to be reproduced without permission. By the way, I do not think you broke any laws because the printed matter you described sounds like something in public domain. I have been called to restore many old pictures that are over fifty years old. If a client brings in a recent photograph for reproduction or restoration, I would first try to see if the photographer who created the picture was still in business. When it is obvious that the original author cannot be contacted no matter how hard my customer and try, I will accept the restoration assignment. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-20-2003 09:12 PM                  What really annoys me is every Joe-blow that takes a pic of something or someone and somehow thinks "they" own it. If you are hired to do a specific job, you sure the hell better have in your contract/agreement that you retain the ownership rights. If not, you do not have any legal claims to the work. I agree Scott, if someone hires you for a specific job, you are considered "work for hire" and the ownership rights belong to the person/company hiring you. This applies to ALL intellectual and artistic properties as well as the writing and coding of software! If you are publishing your own work publicly and have the appropriate releases, then you do indeed have ownership rights. But taking photos of private individuals and/or functions that are not for general public publication, is not a free license to own the work. The person hiring the work is the owner unless, as I mentioned, it is specifically mentioned in the contract of who owns the work. Been through too many legal battles with the wanna-be's and won! Get it in the Contract! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-20-2003 10:04 PM                     Any photographer, illustrator or graphic artist should have contracts available for customers to sign to stipulate what kinds of rights are transferred with a purchase. Very often many creative people just assume they keeping the copyright to their creation, but the customer does not necessarily know that. For example, if I am commissioned to do a album cover illustration for someone, I'm going to have them sign a contract that stipulates they'll get a single use of first North American serial rights and that I retain the whole copyright. If they want to buy out the entire copyright, I'll have them sign another contract after re-negotiation for more money. To make the long point short, never assume anything in terms of legal affairs and copyright law. Get it in writing.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-20-2003 10:20 PM                        The pictures from my wedding have a large rubber-stamped copyright notice on the back of each and every print, with the words DO NOT DUPLICATE in big bold letters. We also had to sign a contract with the photog which had the "copyright" section printed in much larger type than the rest of the document. I realize this will not stop the unscrupulous person from scanning. Claude, maybe you ought to crank up the price for those people who just order one print, then tell them the reasons. If they insist they will not be scanning, then have them sign a document that includes a huge penalty if they do scan.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 04-20-2003 11:12 PM                        I do not "THINK" I own rights to the images I create . I know I Do! It does not matter what you think because many othe people with your very short sighted opinion have always lost in the courts as I have stated several times already. By the way,if you are hinting that I am "A JOE BLOW" picture taker, you are wrong again! I have always been a very highly respected photographer in my state for almost forty years and the very proud holder of the Professional Photographers of America's Master of Photography and Photographic Craftsman degrees for over fifteen years! I am a professional trained photographic artist and have been engaged in my craft long before you were born! I have received a community award for producing quality work and providing other service to my community. My state Professional photographers association presented the PPA National Award to me in 1990 for my dedication and service to my industry both local and national. Beside myself, there are hundreds of other photographers all over our great country with similar credentials and awards like mine who have also dedicated themselves to the art of professional photography. There are also thousands of others who do not have degrees or awards but are all equally talented and have provided their clients with very precious images and impeccable service. I hope what I had just stated will make you think twice before you once again refer to the practitioners of my industry as "Every Joe Blow"! If you still dispute what I said, please call the Professional Photographers of America in Atlanta at (800) 786-6277 Monday to Friday and ask to speak to someone about photographers and copyright laws. If you like, you may also call the legal counsel of the Association, HOWE & UTTON in Chicago, Illinois. Sorry I do not have their phone numbers. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 04-20-2003 11:23 PM                  Geeze Claude, lighten up...you are reading way too much into my post. I'm sorry if you felt I was referring to you in particular....I was not. I AM ALSO a professional and I have been around the block a few times myself! Oh and in court cases...and WON! Instead of attacking me, why don't you ***READ*** what I said... Like the "Get it in the contract" bit! I'm really NOT impressed with all of your legal name-dropping... or interested in your legal eagles...been there done that many times! Maybe you should also check into the legalities of all that I said before you go off half-cocked! It really appears that you have to justify your experience and talents by over-reacting. I always thought you were a professional above all that. >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 04-20-2003 11:34 PM                     easy, boys.....  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.