Copyright ignored, Couple USED our Image

[stephen_f]

This past Saturday, one of my employees was photographing a wedding,

I was at another wedding. Usually, we photograph all the details,

at the reception, (tables, decorations, whats on the tables, etc).

Well, she brought me the memories cards when she was finished with

the weddings and I was uploading them on my PC to burn cds, and to

review the work. Well one image stuck out like a sore thumb. This

couple, used am image we took of their engagement photos, and made a

little photo card for every table that said Their name along with

their picture. We didn't make those for them, and you can tell by

looking at the photo, it was made in a photo machine you see at

almost all retail stores. It states on the contract they signed "it

is illigal to make copies of any image withough photographers

permission, etc, etc). Should I try to find out the store that made

the copy and contact them or confront the couple about it. I've

never had this happen, and I'm unsure on how to pursue it.

 

THanks.

[EricM]

I wouldn't do a thing about it. It'll just casue you nothing but stress and nothing will be accomplished. It's not like they will be doing it on a regular practice. In the future, watermark everything you release so they have to ask to use it.

[ellis_vener_photography]

What are you going to do, sue your client ? Stamp your feet and yell "foul"?

 

This seems pretty petty to me and making a fuss about top your client won't help your

reputation or word of mouth marketing. And did you register your copyrights/ Without

registration you'll have a hard time going against the store or company.

 

What you should do is try to find out where the prints were made and report the lab or

store to the PPA: http://www.ppa.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=5

 

PPA may decide to send the equivalant of a "secret shopper " to the store or other stores in

the chain and determine if the company is willful about ignoring copyright. This is

essentially what Olan Mills did with a chain of labs and resulted in a significant victory for

all photographers --and good legal precedent.

[juliet_sequeira___san_jose]

Did you have a stamp on the back of each photo stating that it was copyrighted work and must not be duplicated, along with your name or company name? If not, I suggest getting one and stamping all future prints. If you did have them stamped, then you can find out what store she did it at and file a complaint. Or do as the others suggested as well.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Steve, I suspect you'll get opinions on both sides of the question and alot of people like to argue what's the "right" thing to do. What I would suggest is to learn from this and start offerring the table cards as an ale carte option to your the packages, which is what I do. It's pretty simple to put two table cards on a 4x6 matte print and then the couple will get a good quality photo on their card. Then, when you have your initial meeting with the couple you can show them a card. I've had similar experiences with the couples "lifting" a photo for their website or the wedding program and keep a sample program to share at the first meeting as well.

[conraderb]

On the client end of things, I would be careful. Most clients are going to see this as a petty on the photographer's part. They will say 'We paid you to take the photograph. You are paid. We didn't sell it - we just made a few copies. What's the big deal?'.

 

Educating clients on copyright matters. If the clients had a very clear understanding about their rights for reproduction (ie. you discussed it in consultation with them very clearly), then maybe I would raise the issue with them. If not, I would say that you know what to do when you have your next consultation with clients.

 

CE

[bill c.]

Stephen-- Many photogaphers are dealing with this the easy way-- they set out useage costs for every conceivable possibility in the initial contract. Once the client signs the contract, then they agree to pay you for any useage whatsoever. You can also stipulate that failure to pay in a timely manner will constitute copyright infringement, and then spell out the fines on that (pretty substantial, IF you register the copyrights).

 

Suppose you specified a use rate of $50 per image per episode plus $.05 per square inch if the client goes out and makes copies without your authorization (that would mean that a 5 x 7 would cost 35 (square inches) times five equals $1.85, multiply by number of copies). That way, when the infringement occurs, all you have to do is send them a bill (provided, of course, that you discover it).

 

The client will have agreed to this when they signed the contract, there's nothing that they can do. And if they don't pay, they can be taken to court for copyright infringement, and that's a good chunk of change.

 

You want to make it cheaper, BTW, for them to get such copies through you, as then you have a chance to put your contact info on all the copies.

 

Probably the only thing you can do now is let them know that they have done something very, very wrong, but I'd still try to be diplomatic about it.

 

Best of luck. -BC-

[35mmdelux]

If your image was not stamped on the back w/ copyright notice you may have not have an addressable issue. What would you gain out of it anyway. What is the damage - $50? Is it that offensive that they loved your image and in an implied way were promoting you as the photographer?

 

Many photogs, including the wedding guru himself, Denis Reggie, gives away his negs as the little stuff isn't worth the time.

 

Now, if you saw your work in a magazine or other commercialization, then you might take issue. Consider frying bigger fish.

[wistler]

and go to that store and speak to a manager regarding copyright infrigement. Educate the store while being professional.

Wistler

[fotografz]

Having a copyright mark on your work helps clarify. But it isn't the only basis of a

copyright.

 

If you have proof of an original (like the negative), it's still protected.

 

Not that I'd do anything in this case. I've had that happen time and

time again, including a slide show at the wedding featuring all my engagement shots of

the

couple, and my photos on a Music CD the couple gave all the guests. I was simply

flattered.

 

But to be fair, I only sell all inclusive packages, and don't rely on reprints and extras to

make my nut. Maybe I'd feel less "flattered" if I did rely on extras to put food on the table.

[stephen_f]

Its not a money issue, and I certainly don't want ot make a bigger fuss than necessary. But, the fact remains, watermark or no watermark, the image is copyrighted once I take it. But for FYI, there was my buisness name and DO NOT Copy, on the back of all our photographs. Not to mention what is in the contract they signed. I just dont want it happening again, and I will do the report thing to the number specified.

 

Thanks

[craig_gillette]

You can count on it happening again. Most non-photographers are blissfully unaware of copyright law issues. Getting heavy with the customer is a drastic step entirely different than getting heavy with a commercial business that's messing with the pictures.

[phule]

<< We didn't make those for them, and you can tell by looking at the photo, it was made in a photo machine you see at almost all retail stores >>

 

I'd really like to know how you can tell that with one image from your "memories cards." I could make such table cards at home in an hour. Your basic premise is flawed and borders on the absurd.

[john_h.1]

It doesn't matter how the pictures were made. The real issue is unauthorized copying. Getting tough with the customer is not likely to furnish positive results. Your customers will violate your restrictions constantly out of ignorance or on purpose. Its time to consider adjusting your prices or other policies and let the copyrights be transferred to the customer. Don't worry that such transfers will result in unflattering reproductions of your work. As you can see, it will happen anyway.

[cálico]

My friend, I once heard someone say that a better mousetrap will result in smarter mice; that being said, let me tell you that if someone feels that you've been paid (and "they" feel that what you were paid is "fair" in their own estimation or their view of life... ridiculous as that sounds... and that's the mentality used there... or if they feel that getting away with something they consider trivial is not wrong, they will find a way to get around "Copyright," "Do Not Copy" or "Do Not Duplicate," and watermarks.

 

Your best bet, by the way, is simply to use courtesy, diplomacy and your best public relations efforts in subtle ways to let future clients know ahead of time that those products are available at affordable prices, but it is up to you to EDUCATE your clients to your way of thinking, and you can only do this successfully comparable and proportionate to your means of communication skills. Instead of annoying the couple, you might tell them that you could have provided them with a far better product for a nominal fee if they had come to you, and leave it at that! For all you know, they may not even be aware that they did something wrong... and are oblivious to your feelings (but it's not worth letting them know about your feelings... you may be perceived as trying to bleed more money out of them... leave it alone!)

 

Look, being a great photographer doesn't necessarily guarantee success in a business world. Successful business people know when to argue for a cause and when to drop matters that are not worth the effort to even discuss, let alone fight over. Read the posts above, and take advice from those great suggestions offered.

 

Believe me, you will win in the long run, and you will win a lot more, if you learn to "talk the devil into church" than if you stood guard at the church door.

 

Your product is the result of clients' willingness to pay, don't forget; you are also being paid for your time... (is this matter worth the time you'll be spending pursuing a few dollars and possibly annoying a couple and their family, relatives and friends that may refer others to you?) and people sometimes feel that because they are the subjects and that they have paid, but are not fully aware of such details as copyright infringements or specified contracts that they engage in where they pay for specific things... you have to educate them in very, very subtle, diplomatic ways or you will soon start to lose potential clients that may consider you petty or simply a greedy person.... think about it, people have a strange way of making up their own minds, don't they? And, don't forget, that bad rumors travel faster than compliments... is it REALLY worth pursuing?

 

When I was involved in the engraving business, I used to collect small scraps of engraving plastics and make keychains out of them with zodiak signs, initials or first names and give them away... you wouldn't believe how little "throw-aways" can bring business your way. I never advertised, and I was very, very succesful at what I did.

 

For the time being, if you're still adament about this issue, contact the PPA, as suggested above and let them deal with those shops that blatantly disregard copyright laws. The customers/clients? Leave them alone; you are not going to gain much but you may stand to lose a lot in the way of very bad publicity if the word gets out. Being right isn't always profitable; learn to lose a little in order to win a lot more, be the magnanimous person in this matter. At the very least you learned a lesson that will work to improve your business plan and help you with your future business practices! Consider the few dollars lost a very good investment in the lesson learned and leave it at that.

 

Good luck and best wishes.

[kelly_flanigan1]

What if the couple brought the image or digital file to the store/copy shop; and ordered copies' "of THEIR" image?. This happens all the time. The stories vary; they were shot by a starving student; a cousin who is into photography; they were shot in Europe; the dog ate the negatives; they wedding was in IRAQ; the groom is a special forces op; ...Olan Mills has placed their names in their photos for over 1/2 century. Newbie Photographers dont want to stamp any clues; and names; but do the "lets sue the lab route". This lazy behavior just drives up the labs costs; and they are passed back to you; in all services.<br><br> Photographers should strive to get back to prior better standards; and leave clues on photos; duds name; maybe your name????. Once this was advertising. Look at a studio photo from 1890; many had a MAP showing how to get to their studio. The image you gave them might be on a mess of couples websites; photo printing sites; even Kazaa. <br><br><b>Possible grey ownership images are a royal PITA for a copy shop. </b>It wastes alot of time; long distance calls; web searches. Customers swear. Or they may say the Photographer doesnt have decent printing; or specialized printing; or takes too long; or cheated them out of prints. "he was suppose to make these prints; invitations; I'm ticked that I should have to repay for work I already paid for".<BR><BR>One needs a strong front door to deal irrate customers; who want "their image" printed. It might be less stress to ask folks if they are arsonists; terrorists; rapists; thugs. The most guilty customers do the spoiled child; lets make a big public scene; because "their image" wasnt printed. The more crafty can bring in a bogus ginned up release; stating that you the Photographer allows these images to be printed. Many KNOW they are copyrighted images. They may call the Photographer; and person on the other end is their buddy ; saying it is ok. <BR><BR>Getting a fax will permission by a bogus owner has happened here a couple times.<BR><BR>Knowing ones customers radically reduced this PITA ownership jackassery hunt.

[rayt]

As to using the images in a slideshow, that is very much within the fair use of the copyright laws. The couple created the slideshow for their own use. When showing the slideshow the images are not being distributed and it is not a commercial performance. This is nothing more than showing the pictures to friends at your house. All within the fair use rules.

 

Giving copies of the CD away with the images is another issue altogether. That was indeed outside the fair use rules.

 

As for the little table cards, let it go. You will not be able to prove any significant harm, if any, so any award you get would not be worth your time.

 

Photography has to change regarding copyright rules and especially for wedding photographers. Wedding photography should be viewed as a work for hire where you are paid to deliver a finished product. The person that pays for the products owns the final product.

 

If you have someone build a house that was designed by an architect does the architect continue to own the house after it is built? Nope. The same should be done with wedding photography.

 

The couple pays for you to take the images and the couple owns the images. You should provide them with a copyright release and be done with it. Keep copies if you like and offer to the couple reprints at a later date if they so desire. But to hang onto image copyrights for 100+ years is simply absurd for even photographers.

[think27]

It is fairly easy to print labels on Avery address labels..

 

Copyright/my web address and phone number on each label -

I take the time to stick one on every proof.

 

I've gotten a phone call once from a lab alerting me that a customer tried to scan prints.

[michelle_sternberg]

I'm disappointed in all the people telling stephen to just 'forget it and what is his problem'.

Where are your standards and are YOU proud enough of YOUR work to defend it??? This is

a rhetorical question perhaps some here should ponder.

 

Stephen- I had a similar issue just this july. A couple had taken one of their proofs and

printed bw wallets and adhered them to their wedding programs without so much as

asking or even mentioning it. They probably assumed it was just ok because they are

'their' photos. Anyways- after much thought I decided not to bring it up with them at all.

They're good people and it's much more important to me that they were so happy with the

photos that they decided to use it in their wedding. They're currently still working on their

order and I plan on using a shot from their wedding for a display piece. I WAS extremely

upset at the time and since then make sure to highlight copywright policies with my

clients. but still don't get too upset if they're used for minor things like programs, etc.

Unfortunately in this day it's difficult to combat the many options people have for copying

photos- I do not however think we should just completely drop the copywright laws so

many people fought to get for all artists, writers, photographers, etc. Without it there

would be endless pladgerizing(?sp) and for that we should do our best to uphold these

laws whenever possible.

 

Anyway- my best advice is just to do whatever you feel is right. Think this way- is this a

once-in-a-million dollar image that they used? what business do you stand to lose by

their bad word of mouth whether true things are said or not??? people talk and it takes

years to build a good reputation. How important is this to you and will you fight it with

every client? Perhaps create an 'image use' fee for items such as this- some invitation

print companies offer using photos in their products and this could be beneficial to you to

allow clients to use your photos. Also- by them producing these photos it puts a photo

you took in the hands of every guest. Not bad advertising if I do say myself..... anyway

it's a tough spot and not an easy issue.

 

Now- had they taken the photo and blown it up and put it on a coffee cup to sell to every

guest for a $5 'donation to the bride and groom'. I would DEFINETLY speak up and cry

foul, charge them an appropriate $3 per cup/or $300 image use fee, and go home. In this

case they simply printed photos to give to each of their guests and yes it stinks that they

didn't go through you for better print quality, etc. But if they're satisfied giving their

guests a shabbily printed photo what does that say.... hmm?

[michelle_sternberg]

ok, I read through the posts here and withdraw the first portion of my previous statement- I

had only read a couple posts and thought hmm... ;) that ppa reporting is a great tool for

future use. Thanks. good luck stephen

[cálico]

I am one of those guilty of saying, "Forget the incident," but I did NOT say, "Forget the issue." I proposed that the matter be handled better, along adult, mature, businesslike avenues where one's reputation and possible future clients won't be affected by a rash decision, not thoroughly thought out before hand.

 

Time is what photographers get paid for, right? Well, that and the products (images), which includes the use of the photographer's talents, skills, experience, know-how, etc., etc. By chasing down a few dollars, the time and energies spent are simply not worth the bother. BUT, the photograher has gained something: a lesson well learned for future similar/same situations.

 

Look, the bottom line is this: you REALLY can't even begin to think that you (as a photographer and businessperson) can win at each and every deal every single tidbit or minute opportunity to turn over a penny. It's simply not practical and it ain't worth it, unless you wish to be called Mr. Scrooge.

 

What I suggest is that the photographer not ponder and give thought to what has already happened but concentrate on preventing another similar situation if he feels that it is so important to him. Hey, some people believe in giving out a few throw-aways (freebies) while others don't. Both are equally correct and both are equally incorrect, depending on your personal perspective on this matter.

 

Do you STILL think it's worth the trouble? Do you REALLY think it's worth the risk of the word of mouth reputation that can be had for the sake of a few dollars? Why attack the couple you already made money from, why not go after the facilitator, the company that provided copies of the images while forgoing the established, existing copyright laws that they know or SHOULD know about, and where ignorance is no excuse under the law? Or, you can go to the shop/center that provided the copies and explain the copyright laws and why these laws were passed in the first place; what if the images were provided by some part-time kid who really, really doesn't know he did something wrong? (Yes, I know this is difficult to believe, but....?)

 

I'm not saying that he should not fight battles he can win; I am saying that he should fight battles WORTH fighting for. Yes, some things are worth fighting for but THIS ain't! It's absurd, trivial, and petty to go after the couple that has already paid for services rendered; learn from it (I, personally, suspect that they didn't know they were in breach of contract). Leave it alone! Learn from it and consider that you are the one got a good deal in the lesson you learned from.

[jon jacobson]

I have no hard conclusion to offer, so instead, I offer a few random thoughts:

 

Copyright laws are always 100% "civil" matters. Copyright lawsuits are never ever PEOPLE V. DEFENDANT. It's always PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT. This is a matter that will never by prosecuted by the District Attorney or County Prosecutor. Maybe the laws could be changed to more easily protect those of us producing intellectual property? If I stole a stereo from Best Buy the prosecutor would go after me. Why shouldn't it be the same for intellectual property?

 

No thanks.

 

On the other side of that coin, I had somebody contact me because I had a picture of his property on my website. The initial email had a veiled threat, but I called him on the phone, we discussed it, and all ended cool. I removed the image anyway. It would serve him better if his property IS displayed on my website than not. Anyway, I would rather get the email or call from the owner than a summons or serving.

 

In 1978, when I was 12, I bought a single (of course vinyl) of Hotel California for a buck at a real record store. Since then, I must have bought the "rights" to that song at least a half dozen different times. And I don't feel guilty for downloading the new live version from one of those file-share sites. If you see Don Henley, please tell him to "get over it." :o)

 

I had a bride recently strip the visible watermark from screen-res images and posted them on a forum. Yes, I'm disappointed that she would go through the effort to do so. 'Eh, oh well. I don't see the need to bring it up. The idea of the watermark is to allow all viewers to know the origin. Now, these images will be floating all over the 'net with no source sited.

 

Recently, somebody said, I think in this forum somewhere, "I bought the CD, and I can copy it as many times as I want." If ignorance is bliss....

 

My commercial license agreement requires ad agencies to send me a tear sheet. I've never gotten one automatically. I actually had to go out and PURCHASE a book so I could see my image on its front cover. My license agreement also requires these agencies to delete the image from their system when the job is complete. I wonder if they actually do?

 

I love it when people/brides say, "their reprints are so expensive. That's how they make their money ya know." Would that qualify them as "knowing better?"

 

My Dad owns his own construction business. He invariably runs into the irate customer that intentionally short-changes him because his truck was parked in the customer's driveway or something absurd. Best thing I learned from him: he didn't sue. He had a spotless reputation in his industry. He lived and learned. He moved on. He got over it.

[john_h.1]

"Wedding photography should be viewed as a work for hire where you are paid to deliver a finished product."

 

Please let this just be a poor choice of words. A wedding photographer being an employee (work or hire) would relinquish all copyrights to the 'employer' and a host of other problems. I gather the intention was that the photographer be hired (as an independent contractor) to deliver the finished product.

[rayt]

Perhaps it may have been an incorrect choice of words. But having been in a copyright battle, and winning, I found out some interesting things. There is the copyright which gives the owner of the copyrights the permission, priviledge, right to copy, reproduce, sell, or otherwise use the images. Then there is the rights to an image. These rights are different from the copyrights. I can give up the copyrights but still keep the rights to an image. That allows me to continue to use the images, and own the images, but restricts how I can distribute (copy) the images.

 

I have written 30 articles for magazines. The publisher owns the copyrights to the aritcles and has paid me for the copyrights. I still own the rights to the articles so I still own the articles. The same applies to photography.

 

In the copyright battle I had no say, only the publisher, and could not go after the offending company. The publisher was able to go after the company and won a substantial amount of money and forwarded the money to me.

 

In my opinion when you photograph a wedding you are contracted, hired, whatever, to do a job and produce a finished product. When you are done you should provide the finished product to the client and be done with it. To hang onto the images, and control the use of those images, for 70+ years is absurd. The client paid for the product and should own the product.

 

With the digital capabilities of today and easy reproduction of images, to try and keep control is a game of futility. People getting married are not companies that are going to make money from an image, the people getting married simply want the images to record an important event. It is not about shooting commercial advertisement pictures which is a different playing field altogether because of the profit potential. Wedding photography should be treated differently than commercial photography as the purposes of the pictures is markedly different.

[phule]

<< Where are your standards and are YOU proud enough of YOUR work to defend it??? >>

 

Because most people with business sense know when and how and with whom to pick a battle. And most people with ignorance of both the law and buisness pick everything as a battle.