dai_hunter

In the aftermath of the 7/11 bombings in London there was a by-stander who shot some footage of one of the siege / arrests. He was persuaded by an un-named "MEDIA OUTLET" [NOT a broker like Scoopt] to sell not only use rights but the copyright itself.

He realised a pretty much substantial one-off payment but they just turned around and syndicated it and had their money back +++ in hours.

50% of the overall down line syndication value would have been a lot better for him than that one-off payment and loss of the copyright.

Did he have second thoughts and ultimately voice regrets that he sold it that way? You bet! He KNOWS [now] that he was ripped off for the true value of it.

Hunter

IF your home country copyright formalities are fully met (such as registration and or deposit of copies) - AND - your home country is a Berne signatory, the works are protected in all Berne countries. There is no central EC registration system... in the UK and Ireland (Republic of), for example, there is not even a national copyright registration system. Merely creating the work gives it full protection - as long as you can prove your interest in it as the creator / author.

Hunter

Several points John:

1) The Berne Convention would give you the right to sue in the US courts for infringement (by a US based entity) to the full extent that any US born and registered copyright can be pursued... EVEN THOUGH... your UK born work is not registered in the US. The only requirement (a' la Berne) is that any required formalities in the UK are met - and as you know there is no formal registration system in the UK such as there is in the US, but as that is the level of UK side "formality" that will meet the test, so be it.

2) There is probably little that can be done by way of the US courts because US lawyers usually won't take those cases on contingency, especially as they must be heard in the US federal courts unlike in the UK where any magistrates court can hear an infringement case, and where you can go even without a lawyer for both damages and an injunction.

3) If money damages are not important in this case so much as giving the infringer a sharp "whack on the pee-pee" the best and most straightforward approach is to nuke his website by way of a DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] complaint to his hosting provider.

If you contact me off-list I will lay out the details for you on doing that. I was into a case of my own by way of a DMCA complaint less than a month ago. Don't even be nice and contact the actual infringer directly and asking pretty please to not use the images... let him have the big surprise after the ISP/hosting company pulls the images off the web - as they are required to by law on receiving such a complaint. That complaints system doesn't even require that the infringer be informed at all until after the fact and his ISP/hosting provider will be doing the informing, to be sure.

Hunter

Keep an eye on the composition. CD covers are SQUARE and 120 x 120mm this makes a big difference in setting up the shot with any format (film or digital) that does not produce a square output.

Also consider how any text may be laid up on the image. Composing then requires that some "space" (a non-critical part of the image) be left for that. It might be OK, and usualy is, to carry text over part of the body of the subject but not OK, and usually is not, to have a situation where text encroaches on the face of the subject.

When in doubt do NOT shoot close but leave plenty of space all around the subject so the image can be placed (shifted up; down; left; or right) and sized (cropped) during the pre-print page design process.

Here is one example... the text is intended for top and bottom of the image

Hunter<div></div>

Here is the case in detail if you are interested:

The European Court of Justice decides on right of privacy of public persons in the Von Hanover v. Germany case

24/06/2004

The rules applicable to privacy of public figures vary from one country to another. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) clarified last June the interaction between Article 8 (right of privacy) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case involved publication of pictures of Princess Caroline Von Hanover in different German newspapers. The photographs in question represented the Princess in her day-to day life.

In reaching its conclusion the ECHR held that, although Princess Caroline Van Hanover was a well known public person, she did not exercise any official function. The Court therefore decided that the general public did not have a legitimate interest in knowing about the Princess? private life, even if she appeared in public places and was likely to be recognised by the public. The court therefore considered that there was a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

the decision of the ECHR is accessible here (MS Word .doc)

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int////tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?action=open&table=285953B33D3AF94893DC49EF6600CEBD49&key=8274&sessionId=3478398&skin=hudoc-en&attachment=true

Hunter

Not new.. this is just fallout from a previous privacy case:

von Hanover (aka Princess Caroline of Monaco) v Germany - ECHR ca 1994

Subject of that case: Revealing private facts and right to a family (private) life.

Hunter

John Henneberger , aug 09, 2005; 10:10 a.m.

Why would that be a question at all, much less an obvious one? The issue being discussed is not whether photographers can be seen by someone (Excepting my quick phone camera digression). It is the reaction to the photography taking place. How the photographers came to be noticed has nothing to do with the reactions that have been discussed.

If the fact that a photographer might be seen on a camera makes you roll around on the floor laughing your butt off then, at least you are having a good time then I guess.

-----------

The reaction is in the dispatch of a security guard, or more than one, to some person they observe with a camera but who is not even on property they are engaged to protect - just, apparently, nearby.

And yes I am LMAO because it ties in nicely with doing any kind of street work and where someone in your field of view takes exception and challenges you about taking their picture... "Hey pal don't you be takin' my picture..." or "What right do you have to take my picture...? bladi blah, when they are being photographed, probably hundreds of times a day in any large city, without them even knowing it.

So it seems it's OK with you, in the "land 'o the free," that you, by default, have to let "authorities" (real or imagined) see you, and record your presence, but you shouldn't see them? Surely you're joking. Whenever I see security cameras hanging out over the streets and public spaces I tend to take THEIR picture, or at least a picture of their camera but them in person if they show up, and if they want to send someone around to ask what I'm doing let them. Doesn't mean I have to, or will, talk to them if they do.

Hunter

NO ONE HAS ASKED THE MOST OBVIOUS QUESTION HERE...

How do you think these private security stiffs who materialise out of nowhere, at any time you seem to want to shoot a building, even know that you are there?

They are watching YOU on their..... errrr... CCTV security CAMERAS!

Sauce for the goose = sauce for the gander.

ROTFLMAO

Hunter

Disable Java and ------ wooooooosh the text can be copied. It can also be copied by "print screen" command and "print page" from the browser.

This is... in a word - USELESS

Further, in Firefox I can R-click and save images directly even with Java active. As well as read the links to the image locations (url):

http://takecharge.hypermart.net/Key%20West%20sunset,%20double%20boats,%20watermark2.jpg

http://takecharge.hypermart.net/Cinnamon%20closeup,%20watermark.jpg

--------

SAVING TEXT EXAMPLE: http://www.insidersecrets.info/imageprotection.htm

"Artists, photographers, and other creators of original images face a challenge when they publish their work on the Internet. How hard would it be for someone to just copy your image and print it on to photographic paper and claim it as their own, distribute it, or engage in other unethical activities?

(break in text)

Now you can protect yourself and keep people from stealing your property.

Go ahead ... left click to try to highlight any text in

the body of this page as if you were going to copy (steal) it."

How hard is it? Not hard at all! 'Bout as useful as fleas are to a dog.

Hunter

Leif... that one looks like a good candidate for a complaint to the [uK] OFT on the basis that it is an "unfair term or condition" as the define it.

Businesses dealing with consumers are allowed some protection of their commercial interest (e.g. a permitted use agreement in this case) but not beyond, or in a way, that would diminish the consumer's statutory or common law rights. Copyright is a statutory right of any "consumer" using their service that is significantly diminished by those T&Cs, ESPECIALLY, as the copyright splitting is NOT individually negotiated with each user of the website.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/business/running+a+business/utccr.htm

A WORD OF SPECIAL CAUTION - if the photographer is a factual business and posts images there, the unfair terms rules MAY NOT APPLY because it MIGHT be considered a business-to-business transaction which are exempt from the OFT rules.

Hunter

Bob, did you notice the part:

Essick: "...He took me to the police station and made me give up my film. I had to talk to an anti-terrorism officer from the FBI and wait six weeks to get it back...."

UNBELIEVABLE !!! Even a pro, and a journalist at that, willing to just give it up without a fight? No warrant. No probable cause. They just, according to Essick "...made me give up my film...."

I'd have been on the phone to the assignments editor and my [a] [ANY] lawyer faster than they could say homeland security.

That is tantamount to "making" a reporter give up his notes. Photo-journalists have privilege in both their written notes AND their photographs.

Screw that!

Hunter

An interesting twist to this is that at the time Diaz was rep'ed by a fashion agency (I believe it was Elite). It is normal practice in the completely abnormal business of agencies to instruct the models NOT to sign client/photographer releases on the day - and typically the release is not issued until the agency has been paid.

In the end the photographer and / or client has absolutely NO way to verify that a valid release has actually been signed by the model personally and not by some flunky at the agency scribbling the model's name on it.

The issue here was the signature but it would be much more interesting to explore just who signed it. If indeed it was prepared by the agency and the (a?) signature was fixed to the release in the capacity of the agency acting, in a legal sense, as Diaz' "agent" then it could arguably be made out that the signature was valid EVEN IF DIAZ DID NOT PERSONALLY SIGN IT. Under those circumstances the model can always later try to disavow the release as Diaz has here.

Don't know and would love to find out if that was the case here... especially as the jury didn't buy it as a genuine or valid release in this instance. Even Rutter admitted that he became aware at some point that it was not Diaz personal signature - in her own handwiting - but where did it come from and in what circumstances?

Makes you wonder how many other models, photographers and clients, and how many other releases sent out by agents / agencies, after the fact, could be in the same position.

Hunter

First see this discussion:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CFbR&unified_p=1

But if you are still interested see this:

http://www.photofilter.com/tiffen_viewing_filter.html

OR THIS:

http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/index1.html

Download the price list PDF

Page 16 of the PDF price list / Page14 of the printed brochure

SRB MONOVUE CONTRAST VIEWING FILTER

The human eye/brain combination is selective about what we actually see, and we ignore much of what we look at. Film is not so versatile, and photographic results can be disappointing due to distracting shadows or lack of contrast.

THE SRB MONOVUE CONTRAST VIEWING FILTER enables the photographer to assess the scene as it will appear on film. Areas of shadow and poor contrast will be emphasised, allowing corrective action to be taken. The filter is for visual use only, and is supplied in a metal mount in a rubber eyecup to exclude extraneous light. The mount accepts a drop in filter disc. It has a short metal handle drilled for a neck cord (not supplied).

USING WITH BLACK & WHITE

Gives an impression of how colours will look relative to each other on B/W film. The filter does not eliminate colours, but suppresses them visually to their relative tonal values. It emphasises areas of high or low contrast and exaggerates shadows.

USING WITH COLOUR

Allows improved composition in assessing highlights, contrast, and shadows.

SRB MONOVUE ..........................................................................19.95

PAGE 14

--------------

Lastly, before you buy, you can try this for free:

Take two pieces of processed but blank C41 film from the film leader, or one piece and fold it in half, it functions quite nicely as a viewing filter. It isn't exactly the same colour but it will give you some idea of the effect and help you decide if you would benefit from buying one.

Hunter

rob sollett , jul 20, 2005; 06:25 a.m.

Hey, why not! Before I retired from news work, I worked for many a "blind editor."

LOL, I have worked for a few of them too. More than a few. Once it was: "Hunter, give me 250 words and make it "snappy"" He actually got a page dropped on his desk as follows:

Snappy, snappy, snappy, snappy, snappy, snappy, snappy, snappy, snappy, snappy.... (plus 240 additional snappys)

Blue pencil at the ready, he wanted to debate every story's content. He thought he was a master at it. I took to referring to him (out of his hearing of course) as the "master debater." Photo editors, too, often seem to have gone to the same school.

I, gladly, no longer work for that publication. ROTFLMAO

Hunter

You want to read this discussion of the legal position of "Scenes a Faire"

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/scenes.html

Aping is not necessarily infringement, only slavish copying would be.

Hunter

Put a can of Mace in your bag.

Think mailmen and dogs.

Hunter

MORE INFORMATION THAT SEEMS TO SOLVE MANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS QUESTION OF THE NEW 28 CFR 75 REGULATIONS

Trying to work through some of the apparent conflicts between the USC sections 2256 / 2257 and the new regulations in 28CFR Part 75 - a colleague pointed this out and, after checking, it seems a valid explanation:

As near as I can tell, the 2257 requirements do not now ... and perhaps never have, applied to just nudity... no matter HOW graphic or revealing.

from 2257 (the section concerning ADULT images)

(h) As used in this section-

(1) the term 'actual sexually explicit conduct' means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

ref: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

from 2256 (the section concerning U-18 models - but which also claims to set the parameters of 2257):

(2) 'sexually explicit conduct - means actual or simulated-

(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

(B) bestiality;

© masturbation;

(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

ref: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

Note that ONLY A,B,C,D are covered under section 2257 but 2256(2)(E) does NOT apply to images of ADULTS (18+)

Note also that simulated sex is NOT incorporated into section 2257, in fact it is expressly excluded, but it concerns itself only with "actual" sexually explicit conduct set out as A, B, C, or D in 2256.

Hope this helps in further understanding the new regulations as this information is not repeated, or set out, but 28 CFR Part75 merely makes reference to it and the confusion seems to come because section 2256 says one thing but section 2257 actually modifies that list of displays of behaviour triggering the recordkeeping requirement, by leaving OUT "E" and excluding the reference to "simulated" when the images are of adults.

With this in mind it is now easy to see that, almost without exception, fine art nudes that might be found here or on any other art forum would most likely be exempt.

Hunter

I'll tolerate a girlfriend / room mate coming along, even mom, but NEVER BF's (new OR old); "partners"; or husbands. Pain in the rear end.

Hunter

Good discussion and examples (images) of security X-ray fogging

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml#SEC47

available also on that webpage is a PDF downloadable version

Hunter

Michael,

If you just want to see if there was ANY effect put the unused roll through the lab and see if there are any "exposure" streaks across the short axis of the film. If you don't plan to use it anyway it might be worth the experiment. The streaking, if there is any, will usually come from the lip of the cassette where there is more or less metal thickness than on the main body of the cassette.

Let us know what you see.

Hunter

If you want to go outside the community and get specialist, advice here is one powerhouse choice. Though there are others, Paul is a cautious and relatively conservative 1stA lawyer amongst the adult indistry's lions.

Paul Cambria, Jr. of

Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria [buffalo, NY and Los Angeles, CA]

He can be reached at (716) 849-1333 ext-344

or

e-mail pcambria@lglaw.com

His practice is nationwide and he divides his time between the firm's offices in Buffalo and Los Angeles. He has represented many prominent individuals including publisher Larry Flynt, Musicians DMX and Marilyn Manson, and Vivid Video (an adult vidoe production house)

Hunter

As a PJ and in a dynamic situation (riot, demonstrations, police actions, fires and rescues, accidents, ect where there is a lot of movement and fast action/reaction in the area) my first instinct is to let the camera do it's thing on auto and shoot on continuous multi frame or in "x"fr bursts... and keep shooting, if necessary, for the whole 36fr. Rewind, reload [ca 30 seconds] and do it again.

A necessary skill to learn is getting a new film ready while rewinding and then reloading with one hand on the fly, even while changing positions.

With digital, which I don't use, it is in having that replacement memory card in full control.

In my side of the business of photography, it is cheep to go through 4 or 5 rolls of film if you can get the "money" shot, and could be very expensive if you don't but your competition does. Of course, in less dynamic situations I can shoot more considered compositions.

Hunter

Bob, there is one further matter to consider and that is a compliance notice. It would be prudent to consider that an " exempt" notice be posted, in particular to the nude gallery, possibly along with specific reference to a Photo.net policy, as outlined above. This could be done by using a mandatory view click through entry page before anyone can access the nude gallery(ies)

The following, or very similar, wording is very commonly used:

MAIN TITLE: 18 U.S.C.Section 2257 and 28 CFR Part 75 Compliance Notice

"All visual depictions displayed in the following galleries are exempt from the provisions of 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. Part 75 because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (E), but are merely depictions of non-sexual nudity, or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995."

Insert two buttons "proceed to galleries" and a second which can bring up a "report" form page where a complaint can be sent to the moderators about some particular gallery [or image,] perhaps with a copy>paste of the page URL or the actual image URL.

That would most certainly reinforce the ability to police the nude works and bring some attention to those where someone, not only the moderators, has a doubt or objection.

Hunter