No good deed goes unpunished...

<p>Ty,</p>

<p>Just another 2 cents worth.</p>

<p>After reading ALL of the posts, I see a trend of some saying do nothing to them or don't even shoot for people anymore and the rest saying you shouldn't give an inch. I think those ideas are extreme. I would imagine that some part of you enjoys shooting this stuff, and you really hope the subjects value your skills over the basic snap shooters, that most people are. I hope you keep doing things for people, because you enjoy it. The tricky part is drawing the line between a full blown professional presentation and just friendly hand shake agreements. The separation of work and fun, I guess. </p>

<p>Here is an off the wall suggestion, for making photos available to folks, and not viewable by the world. Maybe you'll feel safe enough to try this without the "scary" copyright makrs and stuff.</p>

<p>I assume you have a web page. Simply create a new folder on it, called "private" and then in that folder add another for the occasion, like "cheapskatehockeyplayers". Load some not very hi res versions of the shots there. Then when people want to see the shots, you give them the direct URL. Like this:<br>

www.mywebpage.com/private/cheapskatehockeyplayers/</p>

<p>They are the only ones who know it's there. And then, let them know that link will come down in 30 days, so that the rest of the world won't stumble on it and steal the shots of them. It won't cost you anything. It's not where people would be actively looking for stuff to steal, and it gets the " Can you put them on the web... ? " request covered.</p>

<p>Of course, if you give out a CD, the rest of the people will simple ask the person you gave it to to "burn them a copy. " . In these cases, that wouldn't be such a bad idea. You could just say you've had " bad experiences" putting private images on the 'net, and leave it at that. That removes the confusion of the masses out of the equation.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Okay here are a few quick points:<br /> 1. I can certainly understand their concern about flickr. Try another website like Google Picasa where people given the link can view it. That way it's not completely open to the internet.<br>

<br /> 2. You should try to explain to them about your stance on copyright. In the case of the birthday party, I think you are not going to mind that the parents reproduce the images because they are a gift from you. Rather I think you should explain to them that as a professional photographer, every image you make is representative of your skills and aptitude. Therefore, any potential modifications done to those images would reflected badly on your reputation. This is one of the less known part of copyright and few people understand the full ramifications unless you explain it politely and calmly to them.<br>

<br /> 3. Next time, get contracts in writing =)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>That's why I 95% of my work doesn't include people. When people are involved things get so "sticky" quickly. The other 5% may have include people, but they're not obviously the focus. I shoot mostly nature scenes in known public places. Bees and things and flowers don't make such demands.<br>

Jesse</p>

<p>Matt Laur offers sound advice. The key is to pre-educate people and make sure they understand the concept of "swim lanes". There still might be issues, but I think people with good intent will win out in the long haul. Still I'll stick to mother nature for the time being! =)<br>

Jesse</p>

 

<p >Ty, thanks for posting this.</p>

<p >There has been some very valid view points on either side of the debate. Personally I feel you are correct in putting your watermark on the photos as it protects yourself and the people in the picture. If I were in your position when being criticized I would have simply removed the photos from the web and be done with it, but I think I have a shorter fuse than you. You were being altruistic doing this for your neighbors and it is a little sad that the take away message for me is don't give your photographic services away for free. </p>

 

<p>Ty, i don't think you did anything wrong here. i know many parents are oversensitive to the idea of their kids images being posted online. they are afraid that some creep will see the photo and kidnap or rape their child. i have never heard of that actually happening, but that is where the fear and reactions are coming from. i am glad that your neighbor appreciated your very generous gift.</p>

<p>If you were shooting the birthday event as a gift to the parents of the child, why would you put your logo on the images? Especially if you didn't expect any compensation? Wasn't this a gift?<br>

I think the best option is to pay a few bucks for a Flash website like bludomain type with a proofing gallery and upload the images there. The pix would be low rez and a real pain to copy, and still wouldn't be print quality if they were copied. You wouldn't need to watermark the pix and you can link to a shopping cart where you can charge for the pictures. Even though this isn't a full time business for you, obviously you want to be compensated for your time or you wouldn't be watermarking images...<br>

If you set the expectation up front with the "customer" you can avoid a lot of problems. Simply say "Hey I'd like to provide coverage and a couple of prints as our gift, if you want to give others the opportunity to purchase prints, I'll provide a secure site where they can do that." Then remind them that this coverage has a value of $$$ so you will need to appreciate that I can't do all the editing of picutres that are taken, unless they are purchased by the customer.</p>

<p>Ty,</p>

<p>After reading all the postings last night (and the few this morning), and visiting your Flickr page, I have a question and two suggestions. My question is, is the watermark and text used on your Flickr site the same as on the images presented for the birthday party?</p>

<p>I consider a small signature or other mark, similar to what a painter might apply to their work, entirely appropriate. Your markings, in contrast, are rather extensive, and I would argue make the images largely unsuitable for anything beyond use as a proof for ordering prints. Further, the large "Robbins Gallery" logo does create a fairly strong impression that the photos may be in a [public, commercial] gallery somewhere; your assurances that this is not the case would need to be particularly well-conveyed to convince people otherwise.</p>

<p>My second suggestion is that if you are truly worried about copyright infringement, you should bulk-register your images with the copyright office. (Essentially, every few months you send in a CD with low-res copies of all the photos you have taken in that time.) While neither this, nor placing a copyright notice on your images, is necessary to gain copyright protection, it does greatly enhance your legal position when infringement occurs.</p>

<p>Ty, no offense, but this is a birthday party and an amateur hockey game and you're worried about copyright and protecting these snapshots? These photos most likely only have value to the participants in the photos, so why so anal retentive? It doesn't seem like very generous "gifts" when you're jumping through hoops trying to cover your ass. Frankly, I would find a logo and copyright symbol in these situations obnoxious and offensive. Lighten up! You're not exactly curing cancer here. It seems you brought the trouble encountered on yourself, being your own worst enemy and that sort of thing. JMHO.</p>

<p>If you are in the United States, you have written permission to publish photos of other people, in the form of the first amendment to the constitution.</p>

<p>My website has photos of me as a baby, my late brother (sick and in the hospital), my wife, my baby girl, and thousands of other strangers. I have a removal policy on my website, which allows for removal based on privacy or obscenity reasons, but doesn't grant people who don't like a photo to have it removed. I was asked to remove a photo of a corporate officer from an essay about his copyright infringement. I refused and was sued in federal court -- case 06-cv-01164, D. MN. It went to trial, I presented a first amendment defense, and I won (see <a href="http://www.cgstock.com/essays/copyright_lawsuit">Gregerson v. Vilana</a> ). I also collected 20k from him for his aforementioned infringement.</p>

<p>My wife found me through my photography website. If we didn't each have photos online, my baby girl wouldn't exist right now. Many people have benefited from the medical photos of my brother online, they have been used in nursing education programs and been published by the CDC (because there are special rules surrounding medical photos, I got my brother's permission before he died, but the point is that even private moments can be of legitimate social benefit to others).</p>

<p>Anyone who really thinks it's wrong for other people to publish a photo of them without permission (not counting advertising use or moments expected to be private), should seek to repeal the first amendment. Otherwise, you are essentially asking someone "I don't like how you exercised your freedom of speech/freedom of the press rights, it bothers me -- please stop". You are expecting them to make their freedom of speech subject to your personal whims. Would you also ask someone "I don't like the religion you practice -- please stop it, because it bothers me" -- ?</p>

 

<p>no matter who or what you shoot you own the copyright to the photograph<br>

if it is for editoral use that's one rule it can be used almost anywhere<br>

if its for commercial use you must have either a personal release<br>

or a property release of each and every person or pice of property<br>

in the photograph, no one can sign for the group each person must sign for themselves<br>

if under 21 (18) some states it must be a gurdien other wise your looking for big probs<br>

I never photograph kids without gauride's there in studio at the shoot<br>

dont ever put yourself in that compremsing position<br>

with kids your only looking for trouble and you will find it fast<br>

reference the copyright when you click the button you have the copyright<br>

its your photograph period the rest are wrong<br>

your use may be limited as you may not have releases ect but its still your copyrighted photo<br>

example (leaglely the Goledn Gate Bridge is owned by the City of SF and you must get<br>

permission to photograph it for commerical use and pay fees) though most don't<br>

it's still trademarked to the city of sf you need aproperty release<br>

another EX you phothgraph the Winn casino in LV for commerical use<br>

the building is very distinct and would be known anywhere as well as the name on top<br>

of the bldg it copyrighted and trademarked<br>

also if you work for a company for a income on there payroll they own the copyright not you</p>

<p>looking forward to your thoughts<br>

just an old casino photographer for one of the best</p>

<p> </p>

<p>On both occasions I would have just given a CD/DVD of small low res images (without copyright) to my neighbor and call it a day. If anyone wants more than that, then you can deal with each request individually.</p>

<p>Thanks for posting. It has generated some good questions, ideas and advice.<br /> <br /> At times I will do free work, usually because a.) I want to learn something new, or b.) I am offering a gift of my services. Whenever I shoot an event for a friend or neighbor for free, I make a few things very clear. <br /> <br /> 1. I will shoot the event (several hours, a day, whatever)<br /> <br /> 2. I will make the best photos available on a <strong><em>PW protected</em> </strong> web site (not publicly accessible)<br /> <br /> 3. I will charge for prints at approximately 20% over cost if they want a particular print via my web site.<br /> <br /> 4. I will give them a disk of the photos if they want one (for free)<br /> <br /> 5. They can download the original file/s for free from my site and develop them as they wish<br /> <br /> Because the web site gallery is PW protected, I do not need to apply my watermark. The watermark deal in your examples I believe confused people.<br>

If you are photographing children - play it safe. Just give a CD to your friend so they can make their own copies as they wish. Legally you may be able to do otherwise (I'm not a lawyer), but if you know most of these people then I'm guessing you will want to be more concerned about a parents' comfort level then the letter of the law.<br /> <br /> A few other thoughts. <br /> <br /> There may be times you want to just go to a local event or party and not be asked to photograph it for free. Buy a good point-and-shoot (even with some nice manual-mode settings, etc) and you can fly under the radar. You get good photos, and you don't attract attention. whenever I show up to a party (whatever) with my 'rig' I usually get asked about pics, etc.<br /> <br /> You can still charge friends or family, but offer a discount. Sometimes attaching a price to your work (even if it's small) keeps things in a better perspective.<br /> <br /> I try to communicate what I will do, and what I won't do beforehand, as best as possible.<br /> <br /> I believe your hearts are in the right place, and it is unfortunate that some people misinterpreted what you were trying to do, but you may have over-engineered the delivery. I agree with Keith L - handing out a CD/DVD of small/med .jpgs would have probably eliminated most of the confusion.</p>