Looks Like Double Standards

I read a lot of threads posted by amateur photographers who complain about copyright infringement or someone using photos without compensation, but then read other threads that are basically asking how to get around using or selling a photo without getting a property release or compensating the model or owner of an item depicted in a photo.

 

Isn't selling a photo without the permission from a model or property owner pretty much the same as a publication using my photo without permission?

 

The business of photography isn't as simple as it seems.

Ethics and honest behavior are simple -- for some adhering to those standards are not.

Sometimes life seems like a constant slog through stupidity. Back when business was starting to get the hang of things online my newspaper actually ran a story outlining ways people could get around "pay walls" that were starting to pop up on Web sites that wanted to earn money for their content. I argued that running such a story was no different than telling people how they could steal televisions from the local electronics store. Nobody listened. Today, of course, the newspaper has its own pay wall and expects readers to cough up cash once they've read their allotment of free articles.

Kinda like Abbie Hoffman's "Steal This Book."

Just one of the many, many reasons I have disdain and even contempt for the majority of humanity. That and their utter and inexplicable inability to use you're and your correctly.

 

There are so many crooks, and at the very least, unethical people out there. Just this morning some d-bag in Thailand hacked my wife's Microsoft account. It's hard sometimes to give people the benefit of the doubt when so many people show they instinctively lean toward screwing others over.

"Isn't selling a photo without the permission from a model or property owner pretty much the same as a publication using my photo without permission?"

 

Not at all.

 

Infringement involves ownership and use with consent is almost always required except for fair use and public domain, ect. and is criminal in some instances. Property releases are almost never required and model releases are only required to avoid liability in four situations. Most commonly advertising/promotional/endorsement uses. Also known as commercial use. Most times the person inquiring is seeking for a legal basis to avoid liability unlike the infringing uses they complain of.

I can take a photo of anyone's property and sell it to anyone at anytime if I took that photo in public. Ditto with a model, and ditto if during a studio shot the model did not sign a release (a release which would have pretty much granted the photographer sole rights to the images anyway).

 

Taking someone's photo online or not and using it without their permission is called stealing. Yeah, it gets done all the time, and if you posted something online you have pretty much decided that it is public property anyway at that point, but stealing is stealing, and lying is lying.

 

Don't even attempt to discuss this with someone in the legal profession, because their main function is to get around legalities, not follow them. My contempt for humanity only applies to lawyers, and they're really not what I or most people consider human anyway. Maybe down there at the fungi level of existence, if that. Yes, life is full of double standards, and it ain't fair either. That's OK by me. It sure beats the alternative.

Edited June 11, 2017 by steve_mareno|1

Two close lawyer friends of mine:

 

One works for the municipal rent board, advocating for and representing tenants who've been shafted by some of the city's most powerful landlords. She makes a lot less money than most of her corporate or criminal lawyer counterparts, and is tireless in her advocacy for low-income tenants in the city.

 

Another works for the public defender's office, also dealing with mostly poorer people who can't afford a high-priced lawyer to defend them from often-spurious charges.

(...)

Don't even attempt to discuss this with someone in the legal profession, because their main function is to get around legalities, not follow them. My contempt for humanity only applies to lawyers, and they're really not what I or most people consider human anyway. Maybe down there at the fungi level of existence, if that. (...)

 

You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to tell you that I consider your contempt for an entire profession to be unfair and totally out of line. I am semi-retired now but for 23 years I worked as a legal translator. My clients were defense lawyers, prosecutors, judges, defendants, plaintiffs, lawyers in private practice and lawyers working for government departments. The vast majority of them were ordinary, honest, hard working people. I know of a few who were sleazy, incompetent and who sometimes breached the ethical rules of their profession. There are also some translators worthy of contempt as well as a few people in all other professions-- including doctors, accountants, surveyors, politicians and yes even amateur and professional photographers. That is no excuse to vilify and insult an entire category of persons. According to the American Bar Association, there were 1,116,967 licensed attorneys in June of 2006. Do you really believe all of them are a species "at the fungi level of existence"?

Painting an entire profession with a broad paintbrush is like treating any group with a broad paintbrush. Assigning the intent and actions of one person to everyone who is in that same group isn't fair to the group. There are a lot of awful people out there who chose to become lawyers and who screw over the little guy all the time. But to Fred's point, there are good lawyers out there.

 

Best to say "SOME" lawyers are bottom-feeding scumbags, and that is definitely true. Let's keep the paintbrushes small and remember the following:

 

There are no problems in this world caused by race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, or any other condition based on what we are. All problems stem from who people choose to be and the choices they make with relation to others. They come from that one group of people common to every one of the aforementioned groups. They are the people who act either purposefully against others, or act so selfishly as to completely ignore the adverse effects of their actions upon others. In other words, a** holes.

 

;)

Maybe down there at the fungi level of existence, if that.

 

Not only unfair to generalize against any group of people, but a clear demonstration of how little you know about fungi.

Can we sum it up : 'All generalisations are inaccurate, including this one.'

I can take a photo of anyone's property and sell it to anyone at anytime if I took that photo in public. Ditto with a model, and ditto if during a studio shot the model did not sign a release (a release which would have pretty much granted the photographer sole rights to the images anyway). . . .

 

Similar to the generalization about the legal profession, those statements are not universally correct, in so far as it depends upon where you happen to be and what laws govern you at the time.

 

WW

Doctors and lawyers have made up most of my family for the last 3 generations, and I've worked for lawyers and in the court systems and also done veterinary medical research. Yes there are some rotten apples in each of those professions, just as there are in any other profession. Broadly categorizing ALL people in a profession of their choice is not only narrow minded and prejudicial, but also shows a lack of common courtesy. Yes, yes, I know the negative euphamisms naming them as sharks and quacks in jokes, but that's a little different than broadly categorizing all of them in a negative way in a public forum. I hope you will come to appreciate lawyers and their skill sets when you really need them.

With all the trillions of images folks can steal online and sell to make money without permission from the original photographer, what are the chances that the original photographer will find out about it?

 

I posted one of my abstracts in a gallery over on an "Art" site and later got an email from a DIY fashion and clothier manufacturer and merchandiser saying they will print my abstract photo on their fashion clothes and sell it for a piece of the action.

 

Never heard of the concept and thought they were spamming or scamming and tossed the email. Further investigation turned up they were a legitimate business which then got me to wonder if they hadn't contacted me to get permission, how would I have known they did it anyway and was selling the clothes and cleaning up?

 

What other outlets for reproducing photos such as on caps, koozies, mouse pads, t-shirts are out there where they are not getting permission from the photographer? How would any photographer find out about it. It's like a needle in a haystack.

"Isn't selling a photo without the permission from a model or property owner pretty much the same as a publication using my photo without permission?"

 

No. You can sell (license) any photo you like. Legally, it is up to the user (buyer, licensee) to be sure they have the proper rights to use the image in the way they wish to. You could license a photo of an iPhone to a designer, but it is up to them to contact Apple to obtain permission to use it.

 

Of course, having/providing releases with the images you license makes them more saleable because it relieves the buyer of the need to do that.

 

And it depends on the final usage of the image. A newsworthy image used in an editorial fashion does not require releases. A photo being used in a commercial way to promote something would require a model release, at least, because in the US, persons have the right to control the publicity of their likeness. Property, however, doesn't have rights. What property releases are actually needed depends very much on the situation: Is a “Property Release” Required for Use of Photo of a House for an Advertisement? | .

 

More info here: Model Releases

My contempt for humanity only applies to lawyers, and they're really not what I or most people consider human anyway. Maybe down there at the fungi level of existence, if that.

 

This is an incredibly deranged statement. There is something seriously wrong with this person and this type of comment has no place in a business oriented forum.

Moderator Note:

 

For the information of all the participants in this conversation, the user has been formally warned concerning the previous inappropriate content (cited by john h above).

 

The original (offensive) comment has not been edited, for several reasons, but mainly because it is hoped that the thread will be brought back on course by comments by other members: which seems to now be the case.

 

It would be a good idea to please consider this side topic now closed and to move on with the main conversation.

 

Thanks

 

William

The business of photography isn't as simple as it seems.

 

I'm sure it isn't; being an amateur, I am not in the business but I know a few professionals and know it's not easy. The legal side, however, doesn't seem to be the hardest bit ;-)

 

Frankly, most amateurs I know have little to no idea about their rights, or those of others. They get angry when somebody uses their photo, yet share somebody else's photo without issue. Quite often between amateurs I've seen people convinced that their portrait rights would prevail over copyright, which under the local laws here isn't true. A fair number who see no problem in sharing sites that use broad T&C's implying a transfer of copyright, and they see no issue in using these sites because they see a certain prestige to being there. Which accidentally gives these sites a huge number of free photos, of course. And these same people can get worked up when they find out their copyrights were infringed, and find they're not to blame because "who reads those usage terms anyway"....

 

I imagine that for a photography business, the business isn't as simple as it seems because all these photos are a form of competition which you can't ever beat on pricing.

So many people do not consider photography a profession for one. Most think we are in the right spot at the right time. Many will say, " wow, that looks so beautiful, I should start shooting photography", like there is no skill or creativity involved. Weddings have always been that way with so many reprinting copyrighted prints, not really caring about the rights at all.

 

Its always been this way - I don't pay any attention to to or look to see who steals my images off the net. It can cause a lot of unnecessary stress.