john_h.1

<blockquote> <p>"As long as it functionally meets my needs... "</p> </blockquote> <p> Makes sense. What else would be needed?</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I can't find any information about this ANYWHERE on the internet."</p> </blockquote> <p>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Employees+vs.+Independent+Contractors+in+New+York</p>

<blockquote> <p>"as long as it works and it is cheap."</p> </blockquote> <p>Everything else is just fluff.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I'm not sure that a monkey grabbing a deliberately placed camera and going wild is very different from a photographer physically pressing the shutter release button."</p> </blockquote> <p> That's probably accurate but I referenced the fact pattern the article was about, not this.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"Who owns the copyrights for photos taken when an animal trips the shutter on an unmanned game camera?"</em><br> It remains untested in the courts but apparently many legal professionals feel such situations do not constitute authorship. <br /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices</a></p> </blockquote> <p>I doubt there will be a consensus among legal professionals that mere copying of alphabetic phone listings (as cited in wikipedia) is the same a aiming a camera to intentionally pick up what comes in its path. Much different than a monkee grabbing it and going wild.</p>

<p>There's nothing to go bananas about with this twisted tale. This case is strictly monkey business. There was no chimping done by the owner. The creature went ape and stole the camera. The beginning of creation here started with the apes. No one first proclaimed "let there be flash". At best, any human caused composition arose merely by accident from monkey see, monkey do mimicry. This is how the Copyright Act works. Its not the law of the jungle.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Distance doesn't matter .. communicate and solve out the thing.."</p> </blockquote> <p>Time does matter. The wedding is over.</p>

<p>In the event of tragedy, vendors having tendered or expended product (flowers, catering ect.) and sometimes paying attending staff can reliably expect to be paid. Vendors, foregoing other work that day, providing hourly services but product later (entertainment not yet performing, photographers ect.) can expect extreme backlash if they seek to be paid. Contractual arrangements for such contingencies won't stop it. Enforcing them will make it worse. Indeed, there will be demands to RETURN money even if duly earned.</p> <p>Its just the way it is. Value is perceived when received. That's not the legal view in equity. It is a cultural view which wields its own power.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The content *IS* the crime.</p> </blockquote> <p>This reveals a grave misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment. Expressive content, itself, is not subject to suppression.</p> <blockquote> <p>An exception would be when the graffiti were created with permission from either the property owner or the municipality that oversees the object (bridge, wall, building, etc.) that hosts the creation.<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>'Creation' of content is not content. Ownership of physical material is irrelevant to content. Applying paint to physical real property is content neutral. If content arises, rather than random splotches spilled on a wall, it is incidental and separate from the physical application of paint. There are no vandalism laws that address content such as allowing expression of some subjects and not others. These laws are content neutral. Because it would run afoul of the 1st Amendment otherwise. Attaching paint to something and creating content are two completely separate concepts. Even when occurring at the same time.</p> <blockquote> <p>No reasonable legal code would protect an act of vandalism.<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>No one argues otherwise. No one claims victim property owners cannot destroy the physical material that makes up expressive content or what it is on. No vandalism is protected. The only thing protected, according to current law, is the use of the content by others except the property owner using the physical material left on the property if they so choose. If one desires that vandals not benefit from copyright to the content, then the avenue is to change the copyright law. That does not violate the 1st Amendment. It is not suppression any more than copyright expatriation periods, fair use ect... The other avenue is to disallow copyright claims as part of a sentence upon conviction for vandalism since that is a permissible means to deprive people of rights.<br /><br />Bottom line, vandalism is not content and there are no laws that base vandalism on what the content is. They merely address the content neutral physical act and leave the content as incidental without consequence per se. </p>

<p>Nancy didn't say, at first, that the copy she got back was signed. That's much different. If figured it was unsigned given how common digital copy is used and the big reaction about being "legal". Even sending an unsigned version suggests circumstances or implied acknowledgment of the terms. There's a clear trail here plus clear evidence of a meeting of the minds. No sweat.</p>

<p>Chill out. Doing what David suggested will help support there being a meeting of the minds. Sending the image of the contract back is also arguably an acknowledgement of its terms (acceptance) unless it says it must be signed or there is no contract. Even if that were the case, showing up and doing it will be a new one or make for an "equitable" basis to keep the payment. Plus you can bring the contract with you to be signed along with a typed in date (with maybe new language acknowledging that the photographer attempted to obtain needed information).<br /><br />Don't sweat it too much. The evidence and circumstances favor your arrangement.<br /><br />In the future, don't take money without the contract. If you need to get info later, throw in a line saying its the client's responsibility to fulfill whatever information inquiries are subsequently made and that they know it is necessary for the job to be done effectively.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I don''t believe that criminals should receive compensation for their crimes."</p> </blockquote> <p>The crime is vandalism or similar, not creation of the content. The proper way to prevent financial gain ARISING from the vandalism would be as part of a sentence after conviction or (in the U.S.) changing the Copyright Act. The next question is whether there should be a de facto public domain like use for anyone to use such content as a result vs. the perpetrator just not being able to demand financial compensation for its use.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"please help me understand how a settlement equates to a court ruling."</p> </blockquote> <p>It doesn't. As Jeff explains.<br /><br />Cases in the U.S. on the topic are scarce. I saw one that was ultimately dismissed on other grounds but there was discussion suggesting a legal right to use the property would being relevant to right to a copyright of what was put on it.</p> <p>I would be troubled that a work, even if made by illegal methods, would be completely unenforceable in terms of copyright. Creating a public domain like free use for anybody. Also, It could open the door to new ways a copyright could be defeated merely due to the negative method in which it was made. I would agree that the property owner would be free to use or dispose of the original work on their real estate since the medium (like a poster) itself has always been transferable while the imagery seen on it just goes for the ride. Plus a real property owner shouldn't have to preserve anything like that of course.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I don't think any US court would seriously consider ruling in favor of supporting either rights or profit from criminal activity. Graffitti is criminal activity.</p> </blockquote> <p> The Chrysler corporation was not so confident...</p> <p>http://nypost.com/2011/11/30/fiat-settles-claim-with-bronx-graffiti-artists-over-j-lo-ad/</p>

<p>Do you have friends with homes? Ask if you can stash em there for a week or two if you are that concerned. But, keeping a storage usable temperature A/C for that time at home shouldn't be a big expense. Even without solar.</p>

<p>We STILL don't know if the agreement specifically encompassed using the images for promotional sample use. Perhaps communication lapses are an ongoing issue. It doesn't matter much. in any event, to the question since the advice would likely be the same. At least in my case. Plus there are probably more samples to use now.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"it does sicken me just a bit that you've been taken advantage of so egregiously"<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Is that really the case? Michael said, "I originally asked the groom if I could put them up, even though<strong> they were up already</strong>", He tells us that he merely wanted to "start a business" and told the friends he would do it because he was "starting out". Rather vague descriptions. It sounds like the story the friends perceive is that he would did the shoot for experience, posted the images and THEN asked about using them. Indeed, Michael did not say permission was granted and revoked. <br /><br />One of the reasons to use a contract. Avoiding misunderstandings.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Ever taken film to a cheap lab and got crappy results? Those same crappy results are now prized by some people, so much so that there's a ready market for expired color film, and plenty of digital filters to make your images look just that bad.</p> </blockquote> <p>How do you know that the market for expired film isn't inspired by good results achieved from decent labs? </p>

<blockquote> <p>I criticised the OP for giving it for free, depriving himself of the fruit of his labour and another photographer of a possible gig... ...if the bride and groom swiched story after the wedding and did not allow for the usage of the images, it just shows just how much respect people have for things they get for free.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is all based on idle speculation. There's no proof that free shooting was the cause for not being able to use the work samples. There are many other potential reasons. Moreover, people change their mind about wedding photos being used for promotional use when paying photographers as well. Situations discussed here before incidentally. Had there been a written contract then any arrangement would have been enforceable. The friendship issue being the only part left to deal with.<br /> <br />Also speculative (and acknowledged as such) is that a pro would so likely get a paid job here but for the poster declining the job. The couple may have found someone else to step in that would not charge pro level fees or charge a fee at all. Indeed, the fact that they used someone so new may show that they were disinclined to go the full pro route to begin with. Its all just a guesswork here.</p> <blockquote> <p>"The more money, the more they will get out of your way and go and do where/what you want them to."<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Not necessarily at all. Indeed, some people paying a lot of money for services are quite demanding on account of it. So this claim is speculative as well. There is no proof that the resistance to allowing use of the images for promotion was because the shoot was free. Its just one of various potential factors or reasons.<br /><br /></p> <p><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>"photography is NOT free... ..,.you deprived another photographer of a gig and you gave the impression to yet some other people that photography is something to be taken lightly, that you don't have to pay for it.You should not give a wedding for free without making absolutely sure that you can get an advantage out of it."</p> </blockquote> <p>With all due respect, this is arrogance. No one has any duty or responsibility to avoid any of these things. You're not special just because you are a photographer. If I get an offer of help from a friend to prepare food for a party as a favor, they have no duty to caterers or bakery or anyone else whose profession is food preparation of some kind. If someone fixes my car as a favor, they have zero responsibility to other auto mechanics or auto service providers. None of those things are necessarily free either. None of these people are ever described as doing anything wrong towards anybody but for some reason, some photographers get huffy if it happens to occur with respect to their industry. No doubt these same photographers have accepted favors during their lives for things they could have paid someone to do. People can shoot for free for any reason they want without any need to justify it.</p> <p><br /><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>"My issue is that I had asked to shoot their wedding so I can <a id="itxthook1" href="/wedding-photography-forum/00cjE5?unified_p=1" rel="nofollow">start a business<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>, but now they're saying I can't use them...So I've basically lost out!!"</p> </blockquote> <p>I say the opposite occurred. Just not in the way you expected. You learned an extremely valuable lesson in that getting in to a photography business means you need to learn how to run a business first. You wouldn't start a photography business without learning about photography. Why would you start any business without learning how you accomplish that? You don't even seem to know,with any confidence, if you own the stuff that you produce... The images. You don't seem to know about there being a difference in using someone's likeness in images vs. using images in general. THese are just legal issues. What's going on with the other business responsibilities and practices?<br /><br /><br />Its great to ask questions but asking, after the fact, on the most frequent and basic issues shows that you need to go back to square one and start over. </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>John H: "So, even if 'exposure' of music is of value to musicians and writers, I don't think it justifies infringement even if it has that incidental effect in some cases."</em><br> Michael Chang: I think it depends on whether one sees it as a curse or an opportunity.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't think my comment was understood. I acknowledged instances of opportunity in the quote referenced. Namely that exposure having incidental effect in some cases. More often than infringing uses of images is my impression. But, I don't have any stats on that. What I was saying is that incidental benefit to the artist or owner doesn't justify the infringement or the conduct of the infringer. That's not what people here are necessarily saying but it kinda seems that way with all the emphasis of how great infringement can be in some particular instances. My view is that good thngs can occur with permissive use and prefer that route rather then one that disregards IT protections and the practical effect that such disregard has over time. In photography, rampant infringement has made it necessary for many photographers to adjust their practices and live with the phenomenon. It has also made subsequent transferees of images (new owners) adapt as well.<br /><br />On a rather different note, Jeff said he doesn't support a music business being able to make copyright claims unless the artist is paid a fair share. I sympathize with that where you have an industry that has vastly more powerful bargaining power than content providers. On the other hand, I think such property should be transferable in a free market. I don't know enough about the industry and the practicalities and technicalities of rights management in that area to opine on solutions.<br /><br />Returning to infringement claims as to audio and music, if infringement is a good thing, I'm open to hearing why other than the fact that an artist or owner may get more attention because of it once in a while. </p>

<p>Thankfully photographers don't have to contend with centralized powerhouses like labels and can do more for themselves on the open market. But infringing without consequence, even from property acquired by unfair powerful business interests, tends to weaken the protection of creative works in general. So, even if 'exposure' of music is of value to musicians and writers, I don't think it justifies infringement even if it has that incidental effect in some cases.<br /><br /><br />I was hoping music artists could better reach an audience directly in the digital age. How is that going?<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>violating the letter of the law, as Lex says, can enrich the music community to create a symbiotic relationship benefiting both sides.</p> </blockquote> <p>Similar to the adage used when asking photographers to provide free work... "You'll get great exposure". Except for the asking part. Now it has come to just taking it. Then calling that helpful.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>the term, used in the context of my post, was specifically relevant</p> </blockquote> <p>Actually, it wasn't. The context of the post is specifically a legal issue. While it may seem like quibbling at first to say, it is important to use the accurate legal terms here. There has been much confusion seen in these forums between copyright and misappropriation. To use legal terms like infringement in a misappropriation situation only promotes further confusion. If you use legal dictionaries and the source law, rather than general use dictionaries, the former associates the term for use specifically with intellectual property.<br /><br />I wouldn't bother pointing this out if it were just trivia, academic or merely for the sake of debate. Lots of people on these forums mix up misappropriation and copyright thinking there are essentially the same or combined somehow. That has resulted in a complete misunderstanding of how misappropriation works which is what this thread asks about.<br /><br />I think we're all on the same page now in any event.</p>